HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-06-11 Board Packet (Part 2)AGENDA ITEM 8a
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:Armando Buelna~
5TAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE:
W.O.lG.F.NO:
April 6,2011
DIV.NO.All
Communications Officer
APPROVED BY:
SUBJECT:2011 Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey Report
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
That the Board of Directors receive the findings of the 2011
Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey Report conducted by
Rea and Parker Research Inc.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
Please see Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To present the Board of Directors with the findings of the 2011
Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey Report.
BACKGROUND:
The Otay Water District's Strategic Plan calls for conducting a
standardized potable and recycled water customer survey program.The
purpose of the survey is to obtain information from customers about
the District's programs,activities,and services with the ultimate
goal of improving customer service.
The 2011 survey contacted 300 customers selected at random from those
residing within the District's service area.Rea and Parker Research
Inc.conducted the survey in both English and Spanish from January 6
through 11,2011.The survey has a margin of error +/-5.6 percent
at a 95 percent confidence level.
The 2011 Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey Report has
found high levels of overall satisfaction from customers with the
District as their water service provider.Ratings,which had fallen
in 2009 survey,have returned to the higher levels.
In this recent survey,63%of customers rate the District as either
excellent or very good."These ratings are substantially higher than
those expressed in the 2009 and 2010 surveys.For example,in 2009,
56%of customers rated the District as either excellent or very good,
and,in 2010,54%indicated either a very good or excellent rating."
Customers also expressed a great deal of confidence in the ability of
local water agencies to provide enough water (93%were very confident
or somewhat confident).Another 81%report a substantial amount of
trust in the Otay Water District to provide clean,safe water.
Customer perception of the upward trend in water rates continues to
be reflected in the customer surveys.For instance,33%perceived an
upward trend in water rates in 2005,compared with 71%in 2009 and
and 70%in 2011.Moreover,as customers perceive rates going up,they
are increasingly motivated to conserve water (71%in 2011 versus 61%
in 2008).
In other significant findings,one-half of the respondents to the
survey expressed a preference in receiving their water bill by email
instead of through the Postal Service.This preference has increased
steadily since 2008 (when 24%expressed interest in receiving their
bill by email)and 2009 (when 35%expressed preference for email).
As an equally significant finding,nearly three fifths of respondents
(58%)would prefer to receive their bill by email and then proceed to
make their payment by one of the various paperless methods other than
by check or cash.
Customers are also quite positive about the potential for the
District to use social media to better serve their needs (nearly one-
half of customers use a least one form of social media such as
Facebook or YouTube).Approximately two-fifths of customers (range of
38%to 42%)provided an affirmative response to five specific
potential uses of social media (such as asking questions or making
comments about customer service,distributing information,emergency
information,notifying customers about construction,or providing
industry news).
More complete information on the survey's findings is contained in
the Executive Summary and the full report (Attachment B).
In conclusion,the 2011 survey report states that amoung customers,
"there are strong indications of support for the work of the Otay
Water District",and customers continue to "demonstrate a high level
of satisfaction with the District as their provider of water
service".
FISCAL IMPACT:
This is an informational item only.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
There lS no fiscal impact.
This project is consistent with the following Strategic Plan Goals:
1.1.1.1 Implement a standardized Potable and Recycled Water Customer
Survey.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attached
Attachment A -Committee Action Report
Attachment B -2011 Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey Report
Attachment C -2011 Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Survy PowerPoint
Presentation
ATTACHMENT A
2011 Otay Water District Customer Opinion and Awareness
SUBJECT/PROJECT:Survey
:
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration and Communications Committee discussed
this item at a meeting held on March 16,2011 and the following
comments were made:
•Staff indicated that an objective within the District's
Strategic Plan is to conduct a customer survey annually to
acertain customer opinions and attitudes of the District's
programs and services.Rea and Parker Research was engaged to
conduct the Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey.
•The survey was conducted in early January 2011.There were
308 respondents which represents a margin of error of +/-5.6
percent.It was noted that the respondents characteristics
(ethnicity,annual household income,age,etc.)is pretty
consistent,overall,from year to year.
•He noted that the respondents demonstrate a high level of
overall satisfaction with the District which has been a steady
finding with each survey and,in fact,the satisfaction level
has rebounded back to 2008 levels.Customers also have a
substantial level of confidence in the District's ability to
provide enough water for its customers with 93%percent of the
respondents indicating they were very confident or somewhat
confident.The trust in obtaining water at a reasonable
price,however,has declined with respondents having a good
amount of trust and great deal of trust declining from 49%in
2010 to 40%in 2011.This decline likely reflects the rate
increases that have been implemented recently.
•Respondents were also asked what they felt was the best value
among utilities,ranking each utility on a 1,2,3 scale.In
2008 the best utility value was trash collection with 28%of
respondents selecting trash collection.In 2009 water
bypassed trash collection with 28%of respondents selecting
water and 24%selecting trash collection.In 2011 trash
collection was again ranked as the best value with 35%of
respondenst (same as 2008 levels)selecting trash collection.
•With regard to conservation there is continued increasing
interest in conservation.However,the awareness of I
conservation measures and issues seems to have declined~
•Higher rates have motivated conservation in 71%of those who
believe that rates have increased (50%overall).Respondents
are watering less outside (time and days),taking shorter
showers,repairing leaks,watering early or late,adjusting
their sprinklers more frequently,and sweeping their
driveways.
•Respondents having heard of or visited the Water Conservation
Garden has declined to 2006 levels.In 2009,there was an
increase to 28%of respondents having heard of or visited the
Garden and in 2011,the percentage of respondents having heard
of or visited the Garden fell back to 2006 levels (16%).It
was discussed that that 2009 may have been an aberrant year as
there is a significant margin of error,particularly with the
small number of respondents (308).
•It was noted that respondents who have indicated that they
have a weather-based controller is holding steady at 6%.
There is growth in the number of respondents who are adjusting
their controllers 7 or more times per year from 17%of
respondents in 2008 to 24%in 2011.
•The survey indicates that there are less respondents visting
the Water Conservation Garden,especially among the lower and
higher income respondents.Respondents visiting the Garden
are from the middle income brackeet.This seems to make sense
as the higher income respondents are likely employing
landscape experts to recommend conservation measures they
should take and lower income respondents may be renters and do
not own homes.
•Of those who have visited the Garden,9%have implemented
changes which include changing plants to drought tolerant
waterwise plants,eliminating lawns,and adusting sprinklers.
This year there was a large increase in respondents indicating
that they are eliminating their lawn from 6%in 2009 to 17%in
2011.
•There was a little downward trend for those who strongly favor
the use of recycled water for watering along freeways,open
space,parks and golf courses with 86%of respondents
supporting its use in 2009 to 78%in 2011.However,when
added to the percentage of those respondents who somewhat
favor the use of recycled water for such purposes,9%in 2009
and 14%in 2011,the overall percentage of those who support
the use of recycled water is about the same,95%in 2009 and
92%in 2011.
•When respondents were asked about utilizing recycled water for
residential front lawns,86%of respondents strongly and
somewhat favored doing so in 2011 which is slightly lower than
in 2009 where 90%of respondents strongly and somewhat favored
its use for residential front lawns.However,this is still
much more supportive in general than responses in 2005 and
2006 where 82%and 81%strongly or somewhat favored the use of
recycled water for residential front lawns.
•Respondents who strongly support utilizing recycled water to
replenish recreational lakes fell from 62%in 2008 to 47%in
2011.Though the survey shows that we are moving downward in
support,it is still above the levels that were measured in
2005 and 2006 where only 34%and 30%respectively supported
recycled water use to replenish recreational lakes.
•There was a clear downward trend in support of utilizing
recycled water to supplement the drinking water supply where
29%of respondents in 2011 strongly and somewhat favored its
use for drinking water compared to 40%in 2008.
•The survey shows that there is an increase in the readership
of the District's CCR (42%in 2009 to 44%in 2011),but there
is a decrease in respondents reading the newsletter and bill
inserts from 2009 (32%in 2009 to 24%in 2011)However,it
is still higher than in 2008 and prior years.
•Visits to the Otay Water District website is steadily
increasing from 19%in 2005 to 39%in 2011.Sixty-six percent
(66%)of respondents rated the website excellent or good in
2011 which is an increase from 56%in 2009,though not to the
level of ratings from 2005 and 2006 where 75%in of
respondents in both years rated the District's website as
excellent or good.
•There is an upward trend in respondents who would like to
receive their monthly bill by email where 50%of respondents
in 2011 are receptive to receiving their bill by email
compared to 35%and 24%in 2009 and 2008 respectively.
•The main reasons indicated by the 47%of respondents who do
not pay their bill online are:
37%indicated they feel it is easier for accounting and
tax purposes to have a paper bill
14%felt more in control when they write checks
12%do not trust the security of online bill pay.
Of the 42%of respondents who indicated that they were
unlikely to utilize a paperless system,the main reasons were:
21%want a paper record
18%do not use computers that often
14%feel more comfortable paying by check
•The District included some new questions regarding social
media and inquired if respondents utilized social media
websites.Forty-six percent (46%)indicated that they did and
the most popular social media websites utilized by respondents
was Facebook and You Tube.Sixty-one (61%)of the respondents
felt that it was very or somewhat important that the District
have social media presence.When asked about ways social
media sites might to utilized,38%to 42%offer some
affirmative responses on how social media might be utilized.
•The committee discussed that customers'main concern has been
that although they are utilizing less water than ever at their
home,their water bill was still going up.It was indicated
that the District needs to focus its outreach on the reasons
that customer bills are increasing,such as reduced water
supplies.The District might also explain where customers'
monies go when they pay their bill.
Following the discussion,the committee supported presentation to
the board as an informational item.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011
Otay Water District
2011 Residential
Customer Opinion and
Awareness Survey
Report
Prepared for
Otay Water District
2554 Sweetwater Springs Blvd.
Spring Valley, CA 91978
Prepared by
Rea & Parker Research
P.O. Box 421079
San Diego, CA 92142
www.rea-parker.com
February, 2011
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 ii
Table of Contents
Page
Executive Summary iii
Introduction and Methodology 1
Sample 2
Report Format 2
Survey Findings 4
Demographic Statistics/Respondent Characteristics 4
Customer Satisfaction and Confidence and Trust in Water Reliability 4
Water Conservation 11
` Water Rates and Conservation 12
Awareness and Interest in Conservation 15
Lawn/Landscaping 16
Cuyamaca College Water Conservation Garden 18
Bill Payment 21
Publications and Website 26
Publications 26
Website 28
Social Media 30
Alternative Water Supplies: Recycling and Desalination 33
Recycling 34
Desalination 37
Comparative Rating of Utilities 41
Conclusions 43
Appendix (Questionnaire, Frequencies, and Open-Ended Responses) 45
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 iii
Otay Water District 2011 Residential Customer Opinion and
Awareness Survey
Executive Summary
The Otay Water District has elected to conduct a statistically reliable customer opinion and
customer awareness telephone survey among residential customers. The purpose of the survey is
twofold – first, to provide information concerning customer satisfaction and customer awareness
of water issues and secondly to improve and enhance customer service. In that regard, the survey
is designed to be comparable, wherever possible, to the results of the 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2009
Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Surveys as well as the 2010 Ocean Water
Desalination Opinion Survey where data are comparable for a limited number of questions only.
.
Sample
The survey was conducted by a random telephone sample of 300 respondents, which equates to a
margin of error of +/- 5.6% at the 95% confidence level.
Respondents are predominantly White (56 percent) and Hispanic/Latino (26 percent) and earn an
annual median household income of $80,400 (32 percent earning $100,000 or more and 6 percent
earning under $25,000). They have a median age of 53 years and have been customers of the
Otay Water District for a median of 15 years. Among these respondents, 58 percent possess a
Bachelor’s degree or more, with 16 percent having a high school education or less. Survey
respondents are largely homeowners (97 percent) with a mean household size of 2.83.
Survey Findings
This survey report has been divided into eight essential information components as follows:
• Demographic Statistics/Respondent Characteristics
• Customer Satisfaction and Confidence and Trust in Water Reliability
• Water Conservation
• Bill Payment
• Publications and Website
• Social Media
• Alternative Water Supplies: Recycling and Desalination
• Comparative Rating of Utilities
Customer Satisfaction and Confidence and Trust in Water Reliability
y Customers have a great deal of confidence in the ability of local water agencies to
provide enough water for their customers (93 percent either very confident or somewhat
confident). These ratings are somewhat higher than the level of confidence portrayed in
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 iv
the 2008 and 2009 General Surveys where 86 percent and 85 percent of respondents
respectively expressed confidence in the ability of local water agencies to provide enough
water.
y Otay Water District customers also have a substantial amount of trust in the ability of the
Otay Water District to provide clean, safe, water for its customers (81 percent either have
a great deal of trust or a good amount of trust). Customer trust in the safety and
cleanliness of water has grown over time from 2005 to 2011.
y Two-fifths of customers have either a great deal of trust (12 percent) or a good amount of
trust (28 percent) in the ability of the Otay Water District to obtain water at reasonable
prices. This level of trust is consistent with the findings of the 2009 General Survey, but
is a little less than in the 2010 survey.
• Among the 17 percent of customers who have called the Otay Water District for service
in the past 6 months, 77 percent indicated that their service was either excellent (26
percent), very good (28 percent), or good (23 percent) The level of satisfaction with
customer service calls found in the current survey is slightly lower than the satisfaction
levels recorded in the 2005, 2006, and 2008, and 2009 surveys.
Water Conservation
• Customers (70 percent) perceive that there has been an upward trend in water rates.
Among those who think that water rates have increased 71 percent indicate that these
higher rates have motivated them to conserve water. This is indicative of an increase in
the percentage of those who are motivated to conserve water from the 2008 and 2009
surveys.
• Among the 50 percent of customers who indicated that higher water rates have motivated
them to conserve water and have taken specific steps to conserve water, during the past 6
months, nearly one fifth (19 percent) spent less time watering outdoors and 14 percent
took shorter showers.
• Regarding the level of interest among customers in conserving water, almost three-
fourths (64) percent of households characterize their level of interest as high and 34
percent as moderate. This level of interest is consistent with the level portrayed in the
2008 and 2009 surveys and it is higher than the level of interest expressed in 2005 and
2006.
• When asked how their awareness of water conservation had changed during the past
year, over two-fifths (43 percent) of customers indicate that it had increased while 40
percent said that it had remained the same.
• Four-fifths of customers indicate that they have automatic sprinklers. Those who adjust
their automatic controller do so an average of 4.7 times per year, which is higher than the
number of times respondents adjusted their sprinklers in 2009 (4.1 times per year) and
2008 (4.4 times per year).
• Nearly one-half of the respondents (49 percent) have seen or heard of the Water
Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca College and 16 percent of all respondents have, in
fact, visited Garden. This represents a decline in visitation from the 2009 survey where
over one-fourth of respondents (28 percent) visited the Garden. It is noteworthy that
2008 and 2009 were years during which there was a great deal of publicity about water
shortages and 2009 was the year when the economy was in a serious downward spiral.
Interest, therefore, in saving money through conservation is not unexpected under such
circumstances.
• Nearly one-half (48 percent) of those who visited the Water Conservation Garden made
changes to their landscaping that resulted from that visit. Among those who made
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 v
changes to their landscaping after their visit to the Garden, nearly two-fifths (39 percent)
changed their landscaping to include plants that are water-wise and drought tolerant.
Another 17 percent eliminated their landscaping and or/lawn entirely.
Bill Payment
• Over one-half (53 percent) of respondents who have visited the District website indicate
that they pay their bill on line (equates to 19 percent of all customers) and over one-
quarter (26 percent) pay by sending a check in the mail. It is noteworthy that 61 percent
of these same respondents would prefer to pay on-line (8 percent more than actually do
so) and 18 percent would prefer to use postal mail (8 percent less than actually do so).
• Among respondents who have accessed the website and do not pay their bill on-line,
nearly two-fifths (37 percent) indicate that they do not pay online because it is easier to
maintain accounting and tax records by using other methods of bill payment.
• Among these respondents who do not pay on-line and have a reason for not doing so,
nearly two-fifths (39 percent) do not know how the District can make paying their bill
on-line more appealing and nearly one-quarter (24 percent) feel that there is nothing the
District can do in this regard. A relatively small percentage (15 percent) of these
respondents indicates that discounts on their bill would make paying on-line somewhat
more appealing.
• One-half of respondents prefer to receive their bill by e-mail instead of through the Postal
Service. This preference has increased steadily since 2008 (24 percent expressed interest
in receiving their bill by e-mail) and 2009 (35 percent expressed preference for e-mail).
• Nearly three-fifths of respondents (58 percent) would prefer to receive their bill from the
Districts by e-mail and then proceed to make their payment by one of various paperless
methods other than by check or cash.
• Among the 42 percent of respondents who indicated that they are unlikely to utilize such
a paperless system, over one-fifth (21 percent) voiced the concern that the paperless
option does not afford them an adequate paper record and 18 percent indicated that they
do not use computers very often.
Publications and Website
• Nearly one-quarter (24 percent) of customers always read the newsletter or bill inserts
that come in the mail with the monthly water bill, another 25 percent read these materials
most months, and 34 percent read them sometimes, leaving 17 percent who never read
the newsletter or bill inserts. This readership pattern is largely consistent with the 2009
survey. The results of the 2009 and 2011 surveys show a substantial increase in
readership patterns over 2008 levels.
• The annual Consumer Confidence Report is read by 44 percent of Otay Water District
customers. This readership represents a growing trend over previous survey periods.
• Nearly two-fifths (39 percent) of customers have visited the Otay Water District website.
This represents a steady increase in visitation since 2005.
• Visitors give the Otay Water District website above average ratings – 66 percent
excellent or good, 30 percent fair, and 2 percent poor. These ratings represent an increase
over the 2009 survey ratings where 56 percent rated the website as either excellent or
good.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 vi
Social Media
• Nearly one-half (46 percent) use at least one form of social media. Nearly one-third (30
percent) of respondents use Facebook as a form of social media. One-fifth use You
Tube.
• Customers are quite positive about the potential for the Otay Water District to use social
media sites to better serve their needs. Approximately two-fifths of customers (range of
38 percent to 42 percent) provide an affirmative response to 5 specific potential uses of
social media (ask questions/make comments about customer service; distribute
information; emergency information; notify about construction; and provide water
industry news.
• Over three-fifths (61 percent) feel that a social media presence is either very important
(28 percent) or somewhat important (33 percent). Based on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 =
very important and 5 = very unimportant, customers rated the importance of the Otay
Water District having a presence using social media. The mean rating is 2.53 (above the
scale midpoint of 3).
Alternative Water Supplies: Recycling and Desalination
• Customers continue to support the use of recycled water for watering landscape along
freeways, open space, parks, and golf courses. In the current survey, 92 percent either
strongly favor (78 percent) or somewhat favor (14 percent) the use of recycled water for
landscape and golf courses. This finding is consistent with all previous surveys since
2005.
• Respondents also support the use of recycled water for watering residential front lawns –
86 percent either strongly favor (67 percent) or somewhat favor (19 percent) such use of
recycled water. The more recent surveys conducted in 2011, 2009, and 2008 surveys are
much more supportive of using recycled water to water front lawns than are the
customers in the 2005 and 2006 surveys.
• The level of support for the use of recycled water to replenish recreational lakes, although
not as high as in 2009 (62 percent strongly in favor), is still well above the 2005-2006
levels of support—47 percent strongly in favor versus 30 percent (2006) and 34 percent
(2005).
• There is, however, declining support among customers for the use of recycled water to
supplement the drinking water supply. In the current survey, 29 percent either strongly
favor (16 percent) or somewhat favor (13 percent) supplementing the drinking water in
contrast to 40 percent (2008) and 34 percent (2006).
• A considerable proportion of District customers (79 percent) feel that ocean water
desalination can be substantially important in maintaining a reliable supply of water in
San Diego County (60 percent – very important and 19 percent – somewhat important).
This relatively high level of importance attributed to maintaining a reliable water supply
was also exhibited by District customers in the 2009 General Survey (86 percent) and the
2010 Ocean Water Desalination Opinion Survey (88 percent).
• Nearly one-half (46 percent) of District customers favor an international agreement to
purchase desalinated water from the proposed Rosarito Beach Facility in Mexico. This
percentage represents a decline of 8 percentage points from the results of the 2010 survey
where 54 percent favored such an agreement.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 vii
• Among the 34 percent who oppose the international agreement with Mexico, over two-
fifths (41 percent) indicate that they do not trust the quality of water in Mexico and/or
they do not trust the Mexican government and 30 percent want the facility constructed in
the United States.
Comparative Rating of Utilities
• Otay Water District Customers rate trash collection as the utility with the best value for
the money paid by customers followed by water and gas and electric. This represents a
reversal from the 2009 ratings where water was rated as the utility with the best value
followed by trash collection, but it also represents a return to the rankings of 2008.
Conclusions
There are strong indications of support for the work of the Otay Water District. The results of the
2011 survey continue to show this strength. For example, Otay Water District customers
demonstrate a high level of satisfaction with the District as their provider of water service.
Customers also have a great deal of confidence in the ability of the District to provide clean and
safe water for its customers.
Customers are very aware that water rates have increased, and this knowledge has prompted a
greater motivation to conserve water. Customers continue to support alternative sources of water
including the use of recycled water for watering golf courses, open space and along freeways.
They also support recycled water for use on lawns and public landscape and in replenishing
recreational lakes. Customers also strongly support ocean water desalination but not quite one-
half are in favor of an international agreement with Mexico to promote or facilitate desalination.
Readership of the annual Consumer Confidence Report shows an upward trend. Visitation of the
District website is also rising and the rating of the website has increased as well. Customers of the
District support the potential use of social media websites by the District to disseminate
information and to otherwise communicate with customers.
The results of this survey should be viewed as ratification by the public of the importance and
quality of the work done by the District and as an expression of the high value to the public of the
work in which the Otay Water District is engaged.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 1
Introduction and Methodology
In 1956, the Otay Water District was authorized by the State Legislature and gained its
entitlement to imported water. Today, the District serves the needs of approximately 206,000
people within 125.5 squares miles in southern San Diego County by purchasing water from the
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California through the San Diego County Water
Authority and Helix Water District. Sewer services are also provided to portions of the customer
base. Since its inception, the Otay Water District also has collected and reclaimed wastewater
generated within the Jamacha Drainage Basin and pumped the reclaimed water south to the Salt
Creek Basin where it is used for irrigation and other non-potable uses.
The Otay Water District has elected to conduct a statistically reliable customer opinion and
customer awareness telephone survey among its residential customers. The purpose of the survey
is twofold – first, to provide information concerning customer satisfaction and customer
awareness of water issues and second to improve and enhance customer service. In that regard,
the survey is designed to be comparable, wherever possible, to the results of the 2005, 2006,
2008, and 2009 Residential Customer Opinion and Awareness Surveys as well as the 2010 Ocean
Water Desalination Opinion Survey where data are comparable for a limited number of questions
only.
Rea & Parker Research was selected to conduct the 2011 study, as it was for the 2005, 2006,
2008, 2009, and 2010 studies. The purpose of the research is to:
• Determine overall satisfaction with the services of the Otay Water District including the
level of trust in the District to provide enough water at reasonable rates;
• Determine opinions and perceptions of various issues, including:
Water rates
Awareness and interest in water conservation
Methods of and attitudes toward water conservation
Attitudes toward recycling and desalination
Formal district communication efforts including the official website
Potential use of social media websites to distribute information
Customer service
Relative value of water service in comparison to other utilities
• Obtain demographic data about the population for use in descriptive analysis and
crosstabulations of data that can result in new, optimally targeted and tailored public
awareness programs.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 2
• Compare the results of this survey with the results of the 2005, 2006, and 2008, 2009, and
2010 surveys of District customers, where applicable.
Sample
The survey was conducted by a random telephone sample of 300 respondents in order to secure a
margin of error not to exceed +/-5.6 percent @ 95 percent confidence. This figure represents the
widest interval that occurs when the survey question represents an approximate 50 percent-50
percent proportion of the sample. When it is not 50 percent-50 percent, the interval is somewhat
smaller. For example, in the survey findings that follow, 51.0 percent of respondent households
do not recall having seen or heard messages about the Cuyamaca College Water Conservation
Garden. This means that there is a 95 percent chance that the true proportion of the total
population of the District’s service area that has not seen or heard these messages is between 56.6
percent and 45.4 percent (51.0 percent +/- 5.6 percent).
Survey respondents were screened to exclude those customers who have not lived in San Diego
County for at least one year. When respondents asked about who was sponsoring the survey, they
were told “this project is sponsored by the Otay Water District, and it’s about issues related to
your household water supply.”
The survey was conducted in both English and Spanish. Spanish language respondents
comprised 4 percent of the survey population. The distribution of respondents according to
gender was 50 percent male and 50 percent female. The survey was conducted from January 6,
2011 to January 11, 2011. Table 1 shows that 77.8% of those who were actually contacted and
did not experience a language barrier participated in the survey.
Report Format
This survey report has been divided into eight essential information components as follows:
• Demographic Statistics/Respondent Characteristics
• Customer Satisfaction and Confidence and Trust in Water Reliability
• Water Conservation
• Bill Payment
• Publications and Website
• Social Media
• Alternative Water Supplies: Recycling and Desalination
• Comparative Rating of Utilities
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 3
Table 1
Otay Water District 2011 Customer Survey
Telephone Call Disposition Report
Unknown Eligibility
No Answer 240
Busy 16
Answering Machine 628
Not Home—Call Back 225
Language Barrier 10
Refusal 88
Total Unknown 1207
Ineligible
Disconnect 159
Fax/Wrong Number 146
Total Ineligible 305
Eligible
Complete 308
Total Attempts 1,820
Cooperation Rate (Complete/(Complete + Refusal)) 77.8%
Each section of the report begins with a very brief abstract or summary of highlights within the
ensuing section, in order to orient the reader to what is to follow.
Charts have been prepared for each of these major components depicting the basic survey results.
Subgroup analyses for different age groups, various levels of education, gender, home
ownership/rental status, household size, residential tenure in the community, different income
categories, and ethnicity of residents of the service area will be presented in succinct bulleted
format when statistical significance and relevance warrants such treatment.
Lists of all frequencies and open-ended responses to survey questions, as well as the survey
instrument, are contained in the Appendix.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 4
Survey Findings
Demographic Statistics/Respondent Characteristics
Table 2 presents selected demographic characteristics of the survey respondents. Respondents
are predominantly White (56 percent) and Hispanic/Latino (26 percent) and earn an annual
median household income of $80,400 (32 percent earning $100,000 or more and 6 percent
earning under $25,000). They have a median age of 53 years and have been customers of the
Otay Water District for a median of 15 years. Among these respondents, 58 percent possess a
Bachelor’s degree or more, with 16 percent having a high school education or less. Survey
respondents are largely homeowners (97 percent) with a mean household size of 2.83.
Respondent characteristics for the general customer sample survey conducted in 2009 (as
opposed to the more specific desalination survey in 2010) differ from the 2011 respondent
characteristics in the following ways:
• The median income in 2011 ($80,400) is higher than the median income in 2009
($75,700).
• The percentage of households earning an annual income over $100,000 is 32 percent in
2011 and was 26 percent in 2009.
• Nearly three-fifths (58 percent) of respondents in 2011 have a bachelor’s degree or more
while in 2009, 51 percent had a bachelor’s degree or more.
• The average household size in 2011 (2.83) is lower than the average household size in
2009 (3.28) but is very much in the range of 2005 and 2006.
• The median number of years respondents were customers of the Otay Water District is 15
years in 2011 and was less (12 years) in 2009.
Customer Satisfaction and Confidence and Trust in Water Reliability
SUMMARY: Otay Water District customers demonstrate a high level of satisfaction
with the District as their provider of water service with almost two-thirds (63 percent)
rating the District as excellent (25 percent) or very good (38 percent). These ratings are
substantially higher than those expressed in the 2009 and 2010 Surveys and represent a return
to the higher satisfaction ratings found in the 2006 and 2008 Surveys.
Customers have a great deal of confidence in the ability of local water agencies to
provide enough water for its customers (93 percent either very confident or somewhat
confident). These ratings are somewhat higher than the level of confidence portrayed in the
2008 and 2009 General Surveys where 86 percent and 85 percent of respondents respectively
expressed confidence in the ability of local water agencies to provide enough water. Otay
Water District customers also have a substantial amount of trust in the ability of the
Otay Water District to provide clean, safe, water for its customers (81 percent either
have a great deal of trust or a good amount of trust). These ratings are consistent with the
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 5
level of trust portrayed in the 2010 survey. Of note is that customer trust has grown over time
from 2005 to 2011.
Table 2
Respondent Characteristics
Characteristic
2011
2010
2009
2008
2006
2005
Ethnicity
White 56% 44% 55% 52% 55% 54%
Hispanic/Latino 26% 29% 28% 30% 29% 24%
Asian/Pacific Islander 14% 15% 8% 8% 9% 15%
Black/African-
American
2%
8%
6%
6%
6%
5%
Native
American/Other
2% 4% 3% 4% 1% 2%
Annual Household
Income
Median $80,400 $85,600 $75,700 $83,500 $77,500 $85,000
% over $100,000 32% 36% 26% 30% 33% 34%
% under $25,000 6% 10% 8% 5% 6% 2%
Age
Median 53 years 53 years 53 years 47 years 49 years 47 years
Years Customer of
Otay Water District
Median 15 years 9 years 12 years 8 years 10 years ---
Education
High School or Less 16% 12% 17% 22% 22% 14%
At Least One Year
College, Trade,
Vocational School
24%
30%
32%
28%
24%
33%
Bachelor’s Degree 34% 41% 39% 33% 35% 25%
At Least One Year of
Graduate Work
24%
17%
12%
17%
19%
28%
Own/Rent
Home Owner 97% 85% 91% 88% 90% 92%
Renter 3% 15% 9% 12% 10% 8%
Persons Per
Household
Mean 2.83 3.67 3.28 2.88 3.27 3.43
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 6
Two-fifths of customers have either a great deal of trust (12 percent) or a good amount
of trust (28 percent) in the ability of the Otay Water District to obtain water at
reasonable prices. Nearly one fifth (19 percent) of customers lacks trust in the
District’s ability to provide water at reasonable prices – not much trust (13 percent) and
no trust at all (6 percent). This level of trust is consistent with the findings of the 2009
General Survey but a little less than demonstrated in the 2010 survey.
Among the 17 percent of customers who have called the Otay Water District for service
or help in the past 6 months, more than three-fourths (77 percent) indicated that their
service was either excellent (26 percent), very good (28 percent), or good (23 percent)
The level of satisfaction found in the current survey is slightly lower than the
satisfaction levels recorded in the 2005, 2006, and 2008, and 2009 surveys.
Chart 1 shows that customers of the Otay Water District demonstrate a high level of satisfaction
with the District as their provider of water service. In fact, 63 percent rate the Otay Water
District as either excellent (25 percent) or very good (38 percent). These ratings are substantially
higher than those expressed in the 2009 and 2010 Surveys. For example, in 2009, 56 percent of
customers rated the Otay Water District as either excellent or very good and, in 2010, 54 percent
indicated either a very good or excellent rating. The high satisfaction rating in the current 2011
survey represents a return to the ratings in 2006 (65 percent either very good or excellent) and
2008 (63 percent either very good or excellent).
1%6%
30%
38%
25%
2%2%
11%
31%
30%
24%
1%2%
9%
32%
39%
17%
1%1%5%
30%
37%
26%
2%
8%
25%
38%
27%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
20062008200920102011
Chart 1
Overall Satisfaction with Otay Water District
as Water Service Provider
(2.21 = mean on 1-6 scale where 1 = Excellent)
Excellent
Very Good
Good
Fair
Poor
Very Poor
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 7
The high level of satisfaction accorded to the Otay Water District by its customers is further
affirmed by the mean satisfaction rating of 2.21. This mean rating is based on a scale of 1 to 6,
where 1 = excellent, 2 = very good, 3 = good, 4 = fair, 5 = poor, and 6 = very poor.
Chart 2 indicates that there is a great deal of confidence in the ability of local water agencies to
provide enough water for their customers (93 percent very confident or somewhat confident and 7
percent expressing a lack of confidence). These ratings are somewhat higher than the level of
confidence portrayed in the 2008 and 2009 General Surveys where 86 percent and 85 percent of
respondents respectively expressed confidence in the ability of local water agencies to provide
enough water. The current 2011 survey again represents a return to the confidence level
expressed in the 2006 and 2008 General Surveys. For example, in the 2006 survey, 94 percent
expressed confidence and only 6 percent indicated a lack of confidence in the ability of local
water agencies to provide enough water.
• Customers who prefer to communicate in English are more confident than those who
prefer Spanish in the ability of local water agencies to provide enough water (English –
very confident or somewhat confident – 79 percent versus Spanish – very confident or
somewhat confident – 46 percent).
47% 43% 9%1%
49% 45% 5%1%
32% 54% 12%
2%
39% 46% 11% 4%
42% 51% 6%1%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2005
2006
2008
2009
2011
Chart 2
Confidence in Local Water Agencies to Provide Enough Water
(1.67 = mean confidence on 1-4 scale, where 1 = very confident)
Very Confident Somewhat Confident Not Very Confident Not at All Confident
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 8
Chart 3 shows that 81 percent have a substantial amount of trust in the ability of the Otay Water
District to provide clean, safe, water for its customers (37 percent a great deal of trust and 41
percent a good amount of trust). Only 3 percent expressed a lack of trust (2 percent not much
trust and 1 percent no trust at all). These ratings are consistent with the level of trust portrayed in
the 2010 survey. Customer trust is growing over time. Specifically, in the 2008 and 2009
surveys, customers were less trustful than those in the 2010 and 2011 surveys.
• Males tend to have more trust than do females in the ability of the Otay Water District to
provide clean, safe water for its customers (males – mean of 1.78 versus females – mean
of 2.01), on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 = a great deal of trust, 2 = a good amount of trust, 3
= some trust, and 4 = not much trust at all).
1%2%
19%
41%
37%
2%2%
21%
44%
31%
1%3%
28%
40%
28%
1%4%
23%
42%
30%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2008200920102011
Chart 3
Trust Otay Water District to Provide Clean, Safe Water
(1.90 = mean on 1-5 scale where 1 = Great Deal of Trust)
Great Deal of Trust
Good Amount of Trust
Some Trust
Not Much Trust
No Trust at All
In 2006 and 2005, respondents were asked about their confidence in Otay Water District to prevent contamination of water supply. In 2006,
29% had "not much" or "no" confidence. In 2005, that percentage was 22%. It should also be noted that there was only one clearly positive
option in those surveys, skipping from "great deal of confidence" to "some confidence."
Chart 4 shows that two-fifths of customers have either a great deal of trust (12 percent) or a good
amount of trust (28 percent) in the ability of the Otay Water District to obtain water at reasonable
prices. Nearly one fifth (19 percent) of customers lacks trust in the District’s ability to provide
water at reasonable prices – not much trust (13 percent) and no trust at all (6 percent). This level
of trust is consistent with the findings of the 2009 General Survey where 39 percent of customers
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 9
either exhibited a great deal of trust or a good amount of trust in the ability of the Otay Water
District to obtain water at a reasonable price. In 2010, the there was an aberration in the trust
rating in that nearly one-half of respondents (49 percent) expressed a great deal of trust or a good
amount of trust.
It should be well noted that certain statistics and opinions that have emerged from the 2010 Ocean
Water Desalination Opinion Survey differ somewhat on occasion with the results of the Customer
Opinion and Awareness Surveys (General Surveys). The Desalination Survey had a specific
focus and questions were presented to respondents in a different sequence and within a
framework and context that was not duplicated in the General Surveys. This specific framework
may well have oriented respondents to respond differently than they did in the more general
surveys where the questions were varied over an assortment of water-related topics.
6%
13%
41%
28%
12%
6%
7%
38%
32%
17%
6%
17%
38%
29%
10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
200920102011
Chart 4
Trust Otay Water District to Obtain Water at a Reasonable Price
(2.73 = mean on 1-5 scale where 1 = Great Deal of Trust)
Great Deal of Trust
Good Amount of Trust
Some Trust
Not Much Trust
No Trust at All
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 10
Chart 5 indicates that 17 percent of customers have called the Otay Water District for service or
help in the past 6 months. This call rate is the same as the rate in the 2009 survey and is generally
consistent with prior surveys, with some deviation in 2008. Among the 17 percent who called for
service in 2011, 77 percent indicated that their service was either excellent (26 percent), very
good (28 percent), or good (23 percent) (Chart 6). This percentage is slightly lower than the
satisfaction levels recorded in the 2005, 2006, and 2008, and 2009 surveys. For example, in both
the 2008 and 2009 surveys, 82 percent of those who made calls for service rated their service as
either excellent, very good, or good. It should be noted, however, that in the 2009 survey, the
“very good” option was provided to respondents for the first time.
17%17%
10%
18%
19%
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
16%
18%
20%
20052006200820092011
Chart 5
Called Otay Water District for Service in Past 6 Months
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 11
41% 47% 8% 2%2%
51% 33% 9% 7%
56% 26% 9% 6% 3%
39% 25% 18% 10% 8%
26% 28% 23% 9% 8% 6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2005
2006
2008
2009
2011
Chart 6
Satisfaction with Customer Service
(2.60 = mean on 1-5 scale where 1 = Excellent)
Excellent Very Good Good Fair Poor Unsure
Prior to 2009, there was no "Very Good" option; therefore a different color is shown
below that represents "Excellent" responses with no "Very Good" option
Water Conservation
SUMMARY: Customers (70 percent) perceive that there has been an upward trend in
water rates. Customers in the 2009 survey perceived an upward trend in water rates
much to the same extent as customers do in the current 2011 survey. A substantially
smaller percentage of customers in the 2005, 2006, and 2008 surveys thought that
water rates increased than did the customers in the current survey and in the 2009
survey.
Among those who think that water rates have increased, 71 percent indicate that these
higher rates have motivated them to conserve water. This is indicative of a steady
increase in the percentage of those who are motivated to conserve water from the 2008
and 2009 surveys. Among the 50 percent of customers who indicate that higher water
rates have motivated them to conserve water and have taken specific steps to conserve
water, during the past 6 months, nearly one fifth (19 percent) spend less time watering
outdoors and 14 percent take shorter showers.
Regarding the level of interest among all customers in conserving water, almost two-
thirds (64) percent of households characterize their level of interest as high and 34
percent as moderate. This level of interest is consistent with the level portrayed in the
2008 and 2009 surveys and it is higher than the level of interest expressed in 2005 and
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 12
2006. When asked how their awareness of water conservation had changed during the
past year, over two-fifths (43 percent) of customers indicate that it had increased while
40 percent said that it had remained the same. The level of awareness has declined
from the 2009 survey where 63 percent of the customers felt that their awareness of
water conservation had increased over the previous year. The spike in awareness in
2009 can be explained by the heightened publicity that accompanied water supply
issues in 2008 and 2009, in particular.
Four-fifths of customers indicate that they have automatic sprinklers. This is
consistent with the results of previous survey periods – ranging from 75 percent in
2006 to 84 percent in 2008. Those who adjust their automatic controller do so an
average of 4.7 times per year. This is a small increase in the number of times
respondents adjusted their sprinklers from 2008 (4.4 times per year) and 2009 (4.1
times per year).
Nearly one-half of the respondents (49 percent) have seen or heard of the Water
Conservation Garden at Cuyamaca College and 16 percent of all respondents have, in
fact, visited Garden. This represents a decline in visitation from the 2009 survey where
over one-fourth of respondents (28 percent) visited the Garden. Nearly one-half (48
percent) of those who visited the Water Conservation Garden made changes to their
landscaping that resulted from that visit. This represents a decline from visitors who
made changes to their watering and landscaping practices in 2009 where over three-
fifths (61 percent) made such changes. Among those who made changes to their
landscaping after their visit to the Garden, nearly two-fifths (39 percent) changed their
landscaping to include plants that are water-wise and drought tolerant. Another 17
percent eliminated their landscaping and or/lawn entirely.
Water Rates and Conservation: Chart 7 indicates that 70 percent of respondents believe that
water rates have increased over the past year and 13 percent think that rates have stayed the same.
In the 2009 survey, about the same percentage (71 percent) believed that water rates had gone up
over the previous year. A substantially smaller percentage of customers in the 2005, 2006, and
2008 surveys thought that water rates increased than did the customers in the current survey and
in the 2009 survey. For example, in 2005, 33 percent thought water rates increased; in 2008, 51
percent thought rates increased – 19 percent less than the comparable percentage in the current
survey.
The following relationships, related to changes in water rates, are significant:
• Customers of all income levels other than the lowest (all income levels except under
$25,000 – 73 percent) are more likely to believe that water rates have increased in the
past year than are lower income customers (under $25,000 – 54 percent).
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 13
33% 30%3%34%
46% 30%1%23%
51% 32%4% 13%
71% 22%2% 5%
70% 13%3% 14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2005
2006
2008
2009
2011
Chart 7
Trend in Water Rates--Past Year
Gone Up Stayed About the Same Gone Down Not Sure
Among those, who think that water rates have increased, 71 percent indicate that these higher
rates have motivated them to conserve water. This is indicative of a steady increase in the
percentage of those who are motivated to conserve water from the 2008 and 2009 surveys where
61 percent and 66 percent respectively were so motivated (Chart 8).
• All ethnic groups except Whites are motivated to conserve water as a result of higher
water rates (all ethnic groups excluding Whites – 86 percent versus Whites – 73 percent).
Chart 9 shows that among the 50 percent of customers who indicate that higher water rates have
motivated them to conserve water and have taken specific steps to conserve water, during the past
6 months, nearly one fifth (19 percent) spend less time watering outdoors and 14 percent take
shorter showers. A smaller percentage of customers washed only full loads of dishes and clothes
(11 percent) and did not allow water to run (10 percent). In the 2009 survey (percentages
indicated in parentheses on Chart 9), customer indicated that they took similar steps in an effort to
conserve water.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 14
71%
23%
6%
66%
32%
2%
61%
32%
7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
200820092011
Chart 8
Conservation Motivated by Higher Rates
(among 70 percent who think that rates have increased)
Yes
No
Not Sure
Chart 9
Conservation Steps Undertaken in Past Year
(by 50 percent who think that rates have increased and have taken conservation steps in response--
numbers in parentheses are 2009 responses)
Less Time Watering
Outdoors, 19%
Shorter Showers, 14%
Wash Only Full Loads of
Dishes and Clothes, 11%
Do Not Allow Water to
Run, 10%
Fewer Days per Week
Watering Outdoors, 7%Irrigate Early in Morning
or Late at Night, 6%
Let Landscape/Lawn Die-
-Eliminate, 5%
Fix Indoor Leaks, 5%
Fix Outdoor Leaks, 5%
Purchase High-
Efficiency Clothes
Washer/Low-flow
Fixtures, 4%
Use Broom Instead of
Hose, 4%
Collect and Reuse, 3%
Replaced Turf with Low
Water Plants, 2%
Upgrade Irrigation
System, 2%
Other, 3%
Other, 33%
(24%)
(21%)
(10%)
(8%)
(10%)(2%)
(25%)
(7%)
(2%)
(1%)
(4%)
(0%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
(2%)
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 15
Awareness and Interest in Conservation: Respondents were asked about their level of interest
in conserving water with no indication about whether this question pertained to indoor or outdoor
usage – almost two-thirds (64) percent of households characterized their level of interest as high,
34 percent as moderate, 4 percent as low, and 1 percent with no interest. This level of interest is
consistent with the level of interest portrayed in the 2008 and 2009 surveys. However, the current
survey as well as the 2008 and 2009 surveys represent a higher level of interest than was
expressed in the 2005 survey (40 percent expressed high interest) and in the 2006 survey (45
percent expressed high interest --Chart 10.
1%4%
34%
64%
1%4%
35%
60%
3%3%
36%
58%
2%
7%
46%
45%
1%6%
53%
40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
20052006200820092011
Chart 10
Household's Level of Interest in Conserving Water
High Interest
Moderate Interest
Low Interest
No Interest
When asked how their awareness of water conservation had changed during the past year, over
two-fifths (43 percent) of customers indicated that it had increased while 40 percent said that it
had remained the same (Chart 11). The level of awareness has decreased from the 2009 survey
where 63 percent of the customers felt that their awareness of water conservation had increased
over the previous year. Customers in 2009 were subjected to heightened media attention, during
the previous year, about water shortages and impending higher water rates and this information
may have caused the high increase in their level of awareness about water conservation in 2009.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 16
This explanation is further bolstered by the fact that the awareness level had already increased
from the 2005 and 2006 levels, indicating a high level of awareness but one that is not continuing
to increase at rates that were derived from a lower baseline of awareness in 2005 and 2006, in
particular, as indicated in Chart 10.
26% 61% 4% 9%
34% 61% 5%
52% 39% 5% 4%
63% 28% 7% 2%
43% 40% 6% 11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2005
2006
2008
2009
2011
Chart 11
Household's Awareness of Water Conservation During Past Year
Increasing Stay the Same Decreasing Not Sure
Lawn/Landscaping: Chart 12 indicates that 75 percent of customers have some landscaping
area for which their household is responsible. This is largely consistent with the findings of past
surveys.
The following relationships, associated with responsibility for outdoor landscaping, are
significant:
• Homeowners (76 percent) are more likely to have outdoor landscaping for which
someone in the household is responsible than are renters (40 percent).
• Responsibility for outdoor landscaping increases with income (under $25,000 – 39
percent; $25,000 and under $50,000 – 67 percent; $50,000 and under $150,000 – 77
percent; and $150,000 and over – 95 percent).
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 17
• Responsibility for outdoor landscaping increases with education (54 percent for
customers with a high school education or less versus 86 percent for customers with one
bachelor’s degree or more).
• Whites (84 percent) and Asians (74 percent) versus African-Americans (67 percent) and
Latinos (58 percent).
• Customers who prefer to communicate in English (76 percent) versus those who prefer
Spanish (33 percent).
79% 5% 16%
64% 7% 29%
74% 10% 16%
72% 9% 19%
66% 9% 25%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2005
2006
2008
2009
2011
Chart 12
Lawn/Landscaping Responsibility
Landscaping Responsibility and Lawn Landscaping Responsibility and No Lawn No Landscaping Responsibility
In Chart 13, it is demonstrated that 6 percent of the respondents have a weather-based controller.
In the current survey, four-fifths of customers indicate that they have automatic sprinklers. This
is consistent with the results of previous survey periods – ranging from 75 percent in 2006 to 84
percent in 2008. Those who adjust their automatic controller do so an average of 4.7 times per
year. This represents an increase the number of times respondents adjusted their sprinklers in
2009 (4.1 times per year) and 2008 (4.4 times per year).
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 18
1%34% 29% 10% 3%23%
5%18%15% 23% 13%1%25%
6%17%22% 31% 2% 6%16%
1%14%18% 28% 14% 2%23%
6%24%20% 19% 7% 4%20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2005
2006
2008
2009
2011
Chart 13
Adjustments to Sprinkler Settings
Have Weather-Based Controller Automatic Controller--Adjusted 7 or More Times/YearAutomatic Controller--Adjusted 4-6 Times/Year Automatic Controller--Adjusted 1-3 Times/Year
Automatic Controller--Never Adjusted Automatic Controller--Unsure about Number of AdjustmentsNo Automatic Controller
2005: No "7 or more" category. Highest category was "4 or more."
Cuyamaca College Water Conservation Garden: A Water Conservation Garden is located at
Cuyamaca College in El Cajon. The Garden demonstrates various drought resistant and water
efficient plants in an attractive and educational environment. Respondents were asked if they had
ever seen or heard about the Garden and nearly one-half of the respondents (49 percent)
responded in a positive fashion; 16 percent of all respondents have, in fact, visited the Cuyamaca
College Water Conservation Garden. This represents a decline in visitation from the 2009 survey
where over one-fourth of respondents (28 percent) visited the Garden. It is noteworthy that 2008
and 2009 were years during which there was a great deal of publicity about water shortages and
2009 was the year when the economy was in a serious downward spiral. Interest, therefore, in
saving money through conservation is not unexpected under such circumstances. The visitation
pattern in the current survey is also lower than the patterns found in the 2005, 2006, and 2008
surveys. (Chart 14).
The following subgroups are more likely to have heard or seen something about the Cuyamaca
College Water Conservation Garden:
• Homeowners (50 percent) versus renters (10 percent).
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 19
• Smaller household sizes (1 person household – 63 percent; 2 person household – 53
percent, 3-4 person household – 43 percent, and 5 or more person households – 27
percent).
• Having information about the Water Conservation Garden increases with education
(bachelor’s degree or more – 54 percent); high school education or less – 31 percent).
• Hearing or seeing information about the Water Conservation Garden increases with
income up to $75,000 and then begins to decline (under $50,000 – 30 percent, $50,000
and under $75,000 – 69 percent, and $150,000 and above – 40 percent).
51%
33%
16%
52%
20%
28%
56%
22%
22%
53%
27%
20%
55%
26%
19%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
20052006200820092011
Chart 14
Have Seen/Heard of/Visited
Cuyamaca College Water Conservation Garden
Heard of and Visited
Conservation Garden
Heard of but Not Visited
Never Heard of or Seen
Chart 15 shows that nearly one-half (48 percent) of those who visited the Water Conservation
Garden made changes to their landscaping that resulted from that visit. This represents a decline
among visitors who made changes to their watering and landscaping practices from 2009 where
over three-fifths (61 percent) made such changes. The results of the current survey are more
consistent with households in 2005 (45 percent), 2006 (50 percent), and 2008 (48 percent) in
terms of those who made changes to their landscaping as a result of visiting the Garden.
Chart 16 indicates the changes made by 48 percent of visitors to the Water Conservation Garden
who made changes to their landscaping. Nearly two-fifths (39 percent) changed their landscaping
to include plants that are water-wise and drought tolerant. Another 17 percent eliminated their
landscaping and or/lawn entirely. In the 2009 survey, customers became particularly oriented to
drought tolerant plants as a result of visiting the Garden (54 percent). The secondary change in
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 20
2009 was adjustment of sprinklers and reduction of outdoor water usage (17 percent). The
elimination of landscaping and lawns was not a major factor in 2009.
52%
48%
39%
61%
3%
49%
48%
3%
47%
50%
1%
54%
45%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
20052006200820092011
Chart 15
Have Made Chages Due to Visit(s) to Water Conservation Garden
(among 19 percent who have visited)
Yes
No
Unsure
4%
9%
5%
4%
9%
13%
17%
13%
6%
17%
54%39%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Changed Plants to
Waterwise/Drought Tolerant
Let Landscape/Lawn Die-
Eliminate
Adjusted Sprinkers/Reduced
Outdoor Water Use
Collect and Reuse
Upgraded Irrigation System
Replaced Lawn with Low-
Water Plants
Other
Chart 16
Most Significant Change Made Resulting from Visiting
Water Conservation Garden
(among 9 percent who have visited and made changes)
2009 2011
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 21
Bill Payment
SUMMARY Over one-half (53 percent) of respondents who have accessed the District
website indicate that they pay their bill on line. That equates to 19 percent of all
customers. Over one-quarter of those who have visited the website (26 percent) pay by
sending a check in the mail, nearly one-fifth (19 percent) pay their bill through
automatic bank deductions, and 2 percent pay by credit card over the telephone. It is
noteworthy that 61 percent of these same respondents would prefer to pay on-line (8
percent more than actually do so) and 18 percent would prefer to use postal mail (8
percent less than actually do so).
Among these respondents who do not pay their bill on-line, nearly two-fifths (37
percent) indicate that they do not pay online because it is easier to maintain accounting
and tax records by using other methods of bill payment. Among respondents who do
not pay on-line and have a reason for not doing so, nearly two-fifths (39 percent) do
not know how the District can make paying their bill on-line more appealing and
nearly one-quarter (24 percent) feel that there is nothing the District can do in this
regard. A relatively small percentage (15 percent) of these respondents indicates that
discounts on their bill would make paying on-line more appealing.
One-half of respondents prefer to receive their bill by e-mail instead of through the
Postal Service. This preference has increased steadily since 2008 (24 percent expressed
interest in receiving their bill by e-mail) and 2009 (35 percent expressed preference for
e-mail). Nearly three-fifths of respondents (58 percent) would prefer to receive their
bill from the District by e-mail and then proceed to make their payment by one of
various paperless methods other than by check or cash. Among the 42 percent of
respondents who indicated that they are unlikely to utilize such a paperless system,
over one-fifth (21 percent) voiced the concern that the paperless option does not afford
a paper record and 18 percent indicated that they do not use computers very often.
Chart 17 shows that over one-half (53 percent) of respondents who have visited the Otay
Water District website pay their bill on line. This equates to 19 percent of the overall
customer base. Over one-quarter (26 percent) of those who have visited the website pay
by sending a check in the mail, nearly one-fifth (19 percent) pay their bill through
automatic bank deductions, and 2 percent pay by credit card over the telephone. It is
noteworthy that 61 percent of these same respondents would prefer to pay on-line (8
percent more than actually do so) and 18 percent would prefer to use postal mail (8
percent less than actually do so).
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 22
The results of the 2006 and 2008 Call Center surveys (separate opinion surveys about the
quality of customer service among those who had called the Otay Water District for
customer service) showed that similar percentages of respondents paid their bill on-line.
In 2006, 14 percent of call center customers indicated that they paid their bill on-line and
in 2008, 19 percent indicated that their method of bill payment was through the Internet.
• Males are more likely than females to pay their bill by postal mail (23 percent
versus 8 percent); males are more likely to pay their bill through automatic bank
deduction (21 percent versus 14 percent); females are more likely to pay their bill
on-line (65 percent versus 52 percent).
53%
61%
26%
18%19%19%
2%2%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Online Check by Mail Automatic Bank
Deduction
Credit Card by
Telephone
Chart 17
Method of Paying Water Bill: Actual and Preferred Methods
(among the 37 percent who have accessed the District website)
Actual Method Preferred Method
53 percent of the 37 percent who have accessed
the website equates to 19 percent of all
customers.
In 2006 and 2008, this question was asked in a
separate survey of customers who had called
the Otay Water District for customer service. In
2006, these customers responded that 47
percent paid by check (44 percent preferred that
method) and 22 percent paid online (26 percent
preferred.
In 2008, 53 percent paid by check (50 percent
preferred) and 14 percent online (19 percent
preferred).
Among respondents who do not pay their bill on-line, nearly two-fifths (37 percent)
indicate that they do not pay online because it is easier to maintain accounting and tax
records by using other methods of bill payment. Some respondents feel more in control
by writing checks (14 percent) and others do not trust on-line security (12 percent)
(Chart 18).
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 23
Chart 18
Reason for Not Paying Online
(asked of those who have visited Otay Water District website and do not pay online)
Easier for
Accounting/Taxes, 37%
Feel More in Control
When Writing Checks,
14%
Do Not Trust Security
Online, 12%
Automatic Bank
Deduction, 9%
Do Not Use Internet, 9%
Other, 19%
Among these respondents who do not pay on-line and have a reason for not doing so,
nearly two-fifths (39 percent) do not know how the District can make paying their bill
on-line more appealing and nearly one-quarter (24 percent) feel that there is nothing the
District can do in this regard. A relatively small percentage (15 percent of the 47 percent
who do not pay online = 7 percent of all respondents) indicates that discounts on their bill
would make paying on-line more appealing, and 71 percent of these 7 percent say that it
is very likely that discounts would influence them to use the Internet to pay on-line and
29 percent say that it is somewhat likely (Chart 19).
Chart 20 shows that one-half of these respondents would prefer to receive their bill by e-
mail instead of through the Postal Service. This preference has increased steadily since
2008 (24 percent expressed interest in receiving their bill by e-mail) and 2009 (35 percent
expressed preference for e-mail). Respondents were asked if they would prefer to receive
their bill from the District by e-mail and then proceed to make their payment by one of
various paperless methods other than by check or cash. Nearly three-fifths of
respondents (58 percent) indicated a positive response – 38 percent very likely and 20
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 24
percent somewhat likely (Chart 21). Among the 42 percent of respondents who
indicated that they are unlikely to utilize a paperless system, over one-fifth (21 percent)
voiced the concern that the paperless option does not afford a paper record for
bookkeeping and taxes and 18 percent indicated that they do not use computers very
often. Another 14 percent indicate only that they feel “more comfortable” paying by
check (Chart 22).
• All age groups except those who are 55 and over (25 percent) prefer to have a
record of their transactions (other than a paperless one) more so than those who
are 55 and under (10 percent).
• Older respondents object to a paperless method of bill payment because they do
not use computer very much (55 and over – 20 percent versus under 55 – 5
percent).
Chart 19
What Can the District Do to Make Paying Online
a More Appealing Option?
(asked of 14% who do not pay online and had a reason for not paying in that manner)
Do Not Know, 39%
Nothing, 24%
Discounts, 15%
Do Not Like Online
Banking, 13%
Other, 9%
Discount respondents: 71% very
likely and 29% somewhat likely to
pay online if discounts offered.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 25
Unsure, 2%
No, 74%
Yes , 24%
Unsure, 3%
No, 62%
Yes , 35%
Unsure, 5%
No, 45%
Yes , 50%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
2008
2009
2011
Chart 20
Receive Monthly Bill by E-mail?
Chart 21
Likelihood of Paperless Bill Paying Within Next 1-2 Years
Very Likely, 38%
Somewhat Likely, 20%Somewhat Unlikely, 10%
Very Unlikely, 32%
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 26
Chart 22
Objection to Paperless Bill Paying
(asked of 42% who indicated that they were unlikely to utilize a paperless system)
Want Paper Record, 21%
Do Not Use Computers
That Often, 18%
Comfortable Paying by
Check, 14%
Lack of Security/Do Not
Keep personal Records
on Computer, 11%
Computer Failures, 6%
Other, 3%
Will Forget to Check
Computer for Bill, 6%
No Reason/Do Not
Know, 21%
Publications and Website
SUMMARY: Nearly one-quarter (24 percent) of customers always read the newsletter
or bill inserts that come in the mail with the monthly water bill, another 25 percent
read these materials most months, and 34 percent read them sometimes, leaving 17
percent who never read the newsletter or bill inserts. This readership pattern is largely
consistent with the 2009 survey. The results of the 2009 and 2011 surveys show a
substantial increase in readership patterns over 2008 levels.
The annual Consumer Confidence Report is read by 44 percent of Otay Water District
customers. This readership represents a growing trend over previous survey periods.
Nearly two-fifths (39 percent) of customers have visited the Otay Water District
website. This represents a steady increase in visitation since 2005. Visitors give the
Otay Water District website above average ratings – 66 percent excellent or good, 30
percent fair, and 2 percent poor. These ratings represent an increase over the 2009
survey ratings where 56 percent rated the website as either excellent or good.
Publications: Chart 23 shows that 24 percent of customers always read the newsletter or bill
inserts that come in the mail with the monthly water bill, 25 percent read these materials most
months, and another 34 percent read them sometimes, leaving 17 percent who never read the
newsletter or bill inserts. This readership pattern is largely consistent with the 2009 survey. The
results of the 2009 and 2011 surveys show a substantial increase in readership patterns over 2008
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 27
levels. For example, those who read these materials every month and most months increased
from 31 percent in 2008 to 48 percent in 2009 and to 49 percent in the current 2011 survey. Also,
the percentage of customers who never read the newsletter or bill inserts decreased by 10 percent
over the 2008 survey (27 percent in 2008 to 17 percent in 2011).
• Readership of the newsletter and/or bill inserts is considerably less among those at the
highest income levels ($150,000 and over – 5 percent versus $50,000 - $150,000 – 28
percent).
The annual Consumer Confidence Report is read by 44 percent of Otay Water District customers
(Chart 24). This readership represents a growing trend over previous survey periods. While the
readership in the 2009 survey is similar to current levels, it has increased by 14 percent from the
levels found in the 2008 survey (30 percent in 2008 to 44 percent in 2011). Current readership
levels are notably higher than those portrayed in the 2005 and 2006 surveys where 38 percent of
customers indicated that they read the annual Consumer Confidence Report.
• Customers with a higher level of education are more likely to read the annual Consumer
Confidence Report (at least one year of graduate work – 60 percent; high school or less –
30 percent).
28%
41%
18%
12%
20%
32%
26%
22%
27%
42%
15%
16%
21%
31%
16%
32%
17%
34%
25%
24%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2005 2006 2008 2009 2011
Chart 23
Read Newsletter
Every Time
Most Times
Sometimes
Never
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 28
No, 62%
Yes , 38%
No, 62%
Yes , 38%
No, 70%
Yes , 30%
No, 58%
Yes , 42%
No, 56%
Yes , 44%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
2005
2006
2008
2009
2011
Chart 24
Read Consumer Confidence Report
Website: Chart 25 shows that nearly two-fifths (39 percent) of customers have visited the Otay
Water District website. This represents a steady increase in visitation since 2005. For example,
in 2005, 19 percent visited the website, 21 percent visited the website in 2006, 27 percent visited
the website in 2008, and in 2009, the visitation rate was 32 percent.
The following subgroups are more likely to have visited the Otay Water District website:
• Younger customers who are 44 years of age and younger (54 percent) versus customers
who are 65 years of age and older (29 percent).
• Customers with a greater level of education (at least one year of college, trade, or
vocational school or more – 44 percent versus high school education or less – 17
percent).
• Males (45 percent) versus féales (33 percent).
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 29
19% 71% 10%
21% 53% 26%
27% 57% 16%
32% 57% 11%
39% 49% 12%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2005
2006
2008
2009
2011
Chart 25
Visits to Otay Water District Website
Have Visited Website Have Internet Access But Have Not Visited Website Do Not Have Access to the Internet
Chart 26 indicates that website visitors give the Otay Water District website above average
ratings – 66 percent excellent or good, 30 percent fair, and 2 percent poor. These ratings
represent an increase over the 2009 survey ratings where 56 percent rated the website as either
excellent or good. The current 2011 ratings moved closer to the ratings in the 2006 and 2008
surveys where 75 percent of website visitors rated the website as excellent or good.
Customers rate the website with an overall mean of 2.10. This mean is based upon a scale of 1 to
4, where 1 = excellent, 2 = good, 3 = fair, and 4 = poor. This reaffirms the high rating indicated
and explained above.
• Younger customers provide the website with higher ratings than do older customers (35-
54 – mean of 1.93 versus 55-64 – mean of 2.46).
• Customers with higher incomes tend to rate the website more favorably than do
customers with lower incomes ($50,000 and over – mean of 2.01 versus $25,000 -
$50,000 – mean of 2.64).
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 30
19% 48% 15% 1% 17%
20% 55% 14% 3% 8%
21% 54% 12% 12%
7% 49% 30% 7% 7%
16% 50% 21% 2% 11%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2005
2006
2008
2009
2011
Chart 26
Rating of Website
(2.1 = mean rating on 1-5 scale, where 1 = Excellent)
(by 39 percent who have vistited website)
Excellent Good Fair Poor Unsure
Social Media
SUMMARY: Nearly one-half (46 percent) of all respondents use at least one form of
social media. Nearly one-third (30 percent) use Facebook as a form of social media,
and one-fifth use You Tube. Customers are quite positive about the potential for the
Otay Water District to use social media sites to better serve their needs. Approximately
two-fifths of customers (range of 38 percent to 42 percent) provide an affirmative
response to 5 specific potential uses of social media (ask questions/make comments;
distribute information; emergency information; notify about construction; and provide
water industry news). Over three-fifths (61 percent) feel that a social media presence is
either very important (28 percent) or somewhat important (33 percent). Based on a
scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = very important and 5 = very unimportant, customers rated the
importance of the Otay Water District having a presence using social media at 2.53
(above the scale midpoint of 3).
Nearly one-half (46 percent) of respondents use at least one form of social media. Chart
27 indicates that nearly one-third (30 percent) of respondents use Facebook as a form of
social media, and one-fifth use You Tube. Customers are quite positive about the
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 31
potential for the Otay Water District to use social media sites to better serve their needs.
Approximately two-fifths of customers (range of 38 percent to 42 percent) provide an
affirmative response to 5 specific potential uses of social media. For example, 42 percent
feel that these websites could be useful for the District to ask questions and receive
comments about customer satisfaction with services, 40 percent think that the sites could
be used to distribute information about the District, 39 percent think that these sites could
be used for distributing emergency information, 38 percent indicate that it would be
useful to receive notification about scheduled construction and repairs and to learn about
news in the water industry (Chart 28).
30%
20%
4%4%3%
46%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
50%
Facebook You Tube LinkedIn Twitter My Space At Least One of
These Websites
Chart 27
Use of Social Media/Networks
The following subgroups (non-whites, Spanish speaking customers, and larger
households) are particularly oriented to using social media sites for specific purposes.
• Ask questions/receives comments about service satisfaction
o Non-whites (57 percent) versus Whites (35 percent)
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 32
• Distribute information about the District
o Non-whites (56 percent) versus Whites (33 percent).
o Customers who prefer to communicate in Spanish (75 percent) versus
those who prefer English (39 percent).
• Distribute emergency information
o Nonwhites (57 percent) versus Whites (34 percent).
o Larger household sizes (household sizes of 3 or more – 51 percent versus
1 and 2 person households – 30 percent).
• Receive notification about scheduled construction and repair
o Non-whites (56 percent) versus Whites (27 percent).
o Customers who prefer to communicate in Spanish (75 percent) versus
those who prefer English (36 percent).
o Larger household sizes (household sizes of 3 or more – 51 percent versus
1 and 2 person households – 28 percent).
• Water Industry News
o Larger household sizes (household sizes of 3 or more – 49 percent versus
1 and 2 person households – 30 percent).
Yes, 40% No, 43% Unsure, 17%
Yes, 38% No, 44% Unsure, 18%
Yes, 39% No, 44% Unsure, 17%
Yes, 42% No, 42% Unsure, 16%
Yes, 38% No, 47% Unsure, 15%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Construction/Repair
Notification
Questions/Comments about
Service Satisfaction
Emergency Information
Water Industry News
Information about Otay Water
District
Chart 28
Potential Uses for Social Media Websites
Chart 29 shows that over three-fifths (61 percent) feel that a social media presence is
either very important (28 percent) or somewhat important (33 percent). Based on a scale
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 33
of 1 to 5, where 1 = very important and 5 = very unimportant, customers rated the
importance of the Otay Water District having a presence using social media. The mean
rating is 2.53 (above the scale midpoint of 3).
The following subgroups feel that it is important for the Otay Water District to have a
presence using social media.
• Latinos (1.91) and Asians (2.18) as opposed to Whites (2.80).
Chart 29
Importance of Otay Water District Having
Social Media Presence
(2.53 = mean on 1-5 scale where 1 = Very Important)
Very Important, 28%
Somewhat Important,
33%
Neither Important nor
Unimportant, 13%
Somewhat Unimportant,
10%
Very Unimportant, 16%
Alternative Water Supplies: Recycling and Desalination
SUMMARY: Customers continue to support the use of recycled water for watering
landscape along freeways, open space, parks, and golf courses. In the current survey,
92 percent either strongly favor (78 percent) or somewhat favor (14 percent) the use of
recycled water for landscape and golf courses. This finding is consistent with all
previous surveys since 2005.
Respondents also support the use of recycled water for watering residential front lawns
– 86 percent either strongly favor (67 percent) or somewhat favor (19 percent) such use
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 34
of recycled water. The more recent surveys conducted in 2011, 2009, and 2008 are
much more supportive of using recycled water to water front lawns than are the
customers in the 2005 and 2006 surveys.
The level of support for the use of recycled water to replenish recreational lakes,
although not as high as in 2009 (62 percent strongly in favor), is still well above the
2005-2006 levels of support—47 percent strongly in favor versus 30 percent (2006) and
34 percent (2005).
There is, however, declining support among customers for the use of recycled water to
supplement the drinking water supply. In the current survey, 29 percent either
strongly favor (16 percent) or somewhat favor (13 percent) supplementing the drinking
water, which represents less support than in 2008 and 2006.
Nearly three fourths (74 percent) of the customers are familiar with the term
“desalination.” This percentage represents a substantial increase from the results of
the 2010 survey where three-fifths indicated that they were familiar with the term. A
considerable proportion of District customers (79 percent) feel that ocean water
desalination can be substantially important in maintaining a reliable supply of water in
San Diego County (60 percent – very important and 19 percent – somewhat important).
This relatively high level of importance attributed to maintaining a reliable water
supply was also exhibited by District customers in the 2009 General Survey (86
percent) and the 2010 Ocean Water Desalination Opinion Survey (88 percent).
Nearly one-half (46 percent) of District customers favor an international agreement to
purchase desalinated water from the proposed Rosarito Beach Facility in Mexico.
Among the 34 percent who oppose the international agreement with Mexico, over two-
fifths (41 percent) indicate that they do not trust the quality of water in Mexico and/or
they do not trust the Mexican government and 30 percent think that the plant should be
built in the United States.
Recycling: Chart 30 indicates that respondents continue to support the use of recycled water for
watering landscape along freeways, open space, parks, and golf courses. In the current survey, 92
percent either strongly favor (78 percent) or somewhat favor (14 percent) the use of recycled
water for landscape and golf courses. This finding is consistent with all previous surveys since
2005. For example, in 2009, 95 percent either strongly favored (86 percent) or somewhat favored
(9 percent) the use of recycled water to water freeway landscape and open space and in 2008, 100
percent favored such use of recycled water.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 35
85% 11%
1%
1%2%
65% 28% 2%3%2%
82% 18%
86% 9%
1%3%1%
78% 14%
2%1%5%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2005
2006
2008
2009
2011
Chart 30
Favor/Oppose Recycled Water for Watering
along Freeways, Open Space, Parks, Golf Courses
(mean = 1.24 on 1-4 scale where 1 = Strongly Favor)
Strongly Favor Somewhat Favor Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose Unsure
Respondents also support the use of recycled water for watering residential front lawns – 86
percent either strongly favor (67 percent) or somewhat favor (19 percent) such use of recycled
water (Chart 31). While the current 2011 survey is supportive of using recycled water to water
residential front lawns, customers in the 2008 and 2009 surveys were somewhat more supportive.
For example, in 2008, 96 percent of customers expressed some level of favorability for such use
of recycled water. The 2011, 2009, and 2008 surveys are much more supportive of using
recycled water to water front lawns than are the customers in the 2005 and 2006 surveys.
Chart 32 shows that the level of support for the use of recycled water to replenish
recreational lakes (47 percent strongly in favor), although not as high as in 2009 (62
percent strongly in favor), is still well above the 2005-2006 levels of support (30 percent
in 2006 and 34 percent in 2005).
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 36
63% 19% 4% 3% 11%
46% 35% 7% 5% 7%
76% 20% 2%2%
78% 12% 3% 5% 2%
67% 19% 5% 3% 6%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2005
2006
2008
2009
2011
Chart 31
Favor/Oppose Recycled Water for Watering Residential Front Yards
(1.39 = mean on 1-4 scale where 1 = Strongly Favor)
Strongly Favor Somewhat Favor Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose Unsure
34% 18% 19% 19% 10%
30% 39% 10% 15% 6%
62% 18% 14% 6%
47% 21% 9% 10% 13%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2005
2006
2008
2011
Chart 32
Favor/Oppose Recycled Water to Replenish Recreational Lakes
(1.78 = mean on 1-4 scale where 1 = Strongly Favor)
Strongly Favor Somewhat Favor Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose Unsure
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 37
Customers who favor using recycled water for replenishing recreational lakes are
characterized as follows (scale: 1 – 4, where 1 = strongly favor, 2 = somewhat favor, 3 =
somewhat oppose, and 4 = strongly oppose). The overall mean is 1.78.
• Males (1.99) versus females (2.38).
• Customers with higher income levels (all income levels except those with
incomes under $50,000 -- mean of 1.90 versus those with incomes under $50,000
– mean of 2.72).
Chart 33 indicates that there is declining support among customers for the use of
recycled water to supplement the drinking water supply. In the current survey, 29
percent either strongly favor (16 percent) or somewhat favor (13 percent) supplementing
the drinking water. Customers in 2006 recorded an overall favorability rating of 34
percent and among the customers in the 2008 survey, the overall favorability rating was
40 percent.
Customers who favor using recycled water to supplement the drinking water supply are
characterized as follows (scale: 1 – 4, where 1 = strongly favor, 2 = somewhat favor, 3 =
somewhat oppose, and 4 = strongly oppose). The overall mean is 2.97.
• African-Americans (mean of 2.33) versus all other ethnicities, especially Latinos
(mean of 3.54).
• Customers who prefer to communicate in English (3.23) versus those who prefer
Spanish (4.00).
• Males (2.84) versus females (3.69).
Desalination: Chart 34 shows that nearly three fourths (74 percent) of the customers are
familiar with the term “desalination.” This percentage represents an increase from the results of
the 2010 survey where three-fifths indicated that they were familiar with the term. Among those
who said they were familiar with the term in 2011, 95 percent correctly indicated that that it
pertained to removing salts and other impurities from water to make it useable for households. In
2010, this percentage was virtually identical (98 percent of those familiar with the term
“desalination’ correctly defined it).
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 38
11% 23% 14% 46% 6%
14% 26% 14% 40% 6%
16% 13% 15% 42% 14%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2006
2008
2011
Chart 33
Favor/Oppose Recycled Water to Supplement Drinking Water Supply
(2.97 = mean on 1-4 scale where 1 = Strongly Favor)
Strongly Favor Somewhat Favor Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose Unsure
Yes , 74%
No (including Don't
Know), 26%
Yes , 60%
No (including Don't
Know), 40%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
2011 2010
Chart 34
Familiar with Term "Desalination"
"Desalination" was correctly defined by 98 percent of those who indicated familiarity in 2010 and 95 percent in 2011
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 39
The following subgroups are particularly familiar with the term “desalination”.
• Customers with a higher level of education (at least one year of graduate work – 83
percent and bachelor’s degree – 78 percent versus high school or less – 58 percent).
• Whites (83 percent) versus Asians (69 percent), African-Americans (67 percent), and
Latinos (54 percent).
• Males (87 percent) versus females (60 percent).
• Familiarity with the term “desalination” increases with age (18-24 – 25 percent; 25 – 34 –
52 percent; 35 – 44 – 64 percent; and 45 and over – 79 percent).
Chart 35 indicates that a considerable proportion of District customers (79 percent) feel that
ocean water desalination can be substantially important in maintaining a reliable supply of water
in San Diego County (60 percent – very important and 19 percent – somewhat important). This
relatively high level of importance attributed to maintaining a reliable water supply was also
exhibited by District customers in the 2009 General Survey (86 percent) and the 2010 Ocean
Water Desalination Opinion Survey (88 percent).
• Males feel that desalination is important to maintaining a reliable water supply in San
Diego County more so than do females (Males: very important or somewhat important --
86 percent; Females: very important or somewhat important --- 71 percent).
• Females are more uncertain than are males regarding the importance of desalination
(Females: don’t know or refused to answer – 23 percent; males: don’t know or refused to
answer – 10 percent).
16%
2%3%
19%
60%
5%
3%4%
36%
52%
8%
3%3%
21%
65%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2011 2010 2009
Chart 35
Importance of Ocean Water Desalination to Water Supply
(1.37 = mean on 1-4 scale where 1 = Very Important)
Very Important
Somewhat Important
Not Very Important
Not at All Important
Don't Know
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 40
Chart 36 shows that nearly one-half (46 percent) of District customers favor an international
agreement to purchase desalinated water from the proposed Rosarito Beach Facility in Mexico.
This percentage represents a decline of 8 percentage points from the results of the 2010 survey
where 54 percent favored such an agreement. This difference is reflected in the percentage of
customers who indicate that they “do not know” whether they favor such an agreement or not. In
2010, 12 percent indicated that they “do not know” while in the current 2011 survey, this
percentage rose to 20 percent. It is important to recall that the 2010 survey was conducted
specifically about desalination and a great deal of information was included in that survey in
contrast to the few questions and limited information about desalination in the 2011 general
customer survey. Among customers in the 2006 survey, 45 percent favored an international
agreement but 42 percent did not favor the agreement (only 34 percent did not favor the
agreement in 2011 and 2010).
• Males (56 percent) tend to favor an international agreement with Mexico more so than do
females (36 percent).
Favor, 45% Not Favor, 42%Don't Know, 13%
Favor, 54% Not Favor, 34%Don't Know, 12%
Favor, 46% Not Favor, 34% Don't Know, 20%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2011
2010
2006
Chart 36
Favor International Agreement to Purchase
Desalinated Water from Rosarito Beach
In 2009, only the 86% who favored some form of desalination were asked about an agreement
with Mexico. These 86% respoinded 59% in favor, 35% opposed and 6% unsure.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 41
Among the 34 percent who oppose the international agreement with Mexico, over two-fifths (41
percent) indicate that they do not trust the quality of water in Mexico and/or they do not trust the
Mexican government. Another 30 percent feel that the plant should be located in the United
States in order to create jobs domestically. In the 2009 and 2010 surveys, customers expressed
the same reasons for opposing the international agreement with Mexico as they did in the current
2011 survey (Chart 37).
• Customers who have lived in the Otay Water District for a shorter period of time
tend to prefer that the desalination plant be built in the United States more so than
do customers who have lived in the District for a long period of time (1-10 years –
32 percent versus 26 years or more – 16 percent).
3%
3%
4%
5%
7%
10%
18%
30%
68%
41%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Do Not Trust Mexican Water
Quality/Mexican Govt/Mexico
Put Plant in U.S./Create U.S.
Jobs
Cost
Lack of Control
Do Not Want to Drink Seawater
Need More Information
Do Not Like Idea--Generally
Chart 37
Why Not in Favor of Desalinated Water from Mexico
(asked of 34 percent who indicated opposition)2009 2011
In 2010, repondents who preferred the
plant in the U.S. (64 percent) indicated
their reasons to be 53% economy and jobs
and 34% not trusting Mexico and the water
quality therefrom.
Comparative Rating of Utilities
SUMMARY: Otay Water District Customers rate trash collection as the utility with the
best value for the money paid by customers followed by water and gas and electric. This
represents a reversal from the 2009 ratings where water was rated as the utility with the
best value followed by trash collection, but it also represents a return to 2008 ratings.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 42
Using a composite ranking that takes first, second, and third rankings for each utility
into account, trash collection remains the utility with the best value followed by water
and gas and electric service.
Chart 38 indicates that 36 percent of Otay Water District customers rate trash collection as the
utility with the best value for the money paid. Water (22 percent) and gas and electric (19
percent) follow trash collection in perceived value. This represents a reversal from the 2009
ratings where water was rated as the utility with the best value followed by trash collection. The
2011 survey ratings represent a return to 2008 ratings, again showing the power of the water
messages that were so prominent in 2009.
• Customers who rate trash collection as the best value prefer to communicate in English
(English: 37 percent versus Spanish: 17 percent).
• Customers who rate water as the best value prefer to communicate in Spanish (Spanish:
58 percent versus English: 20 percent).
35% 28%15% 7% 5%6% 4%
24% 28%17% 10% 8%8% 5%
36% 22%19% 12% 5%3%3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
2008
2009
2011
Chart 38
Best Value Among Utilities
Trash Collection Water Gas & Electric Telephone Cable TV Internet Access Sewer
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 43
Chart 39 further analyzes the customers’ ratings regarding the utility with the best value by
accounting for second and third rankings. Using a composite ranking that takes first, second, and
third rankings for each utility into account, trash collection remains the utility with the best value
followed by water and gas and electric. Other utilities are far behind by comparison.
4%
6%
6%
11%
19%
23%
31%
7%
10%
10%
13%
19%
23%
18%
6%
8%
7%
10%
17%
27%
25%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
200820092011
Chart 39
Best Value Among Utilities--Weighted
(Utilities ranked 1-2-3 and tallied 3 points for first, 2 points for second, and 1 point for third)
Trash Collection
Water
Gas & Electric
Telephone
Cable TV
Internet Access
Sewer
Conclusions
There are strong indications of support for the work of the Otay Water District. The results of the
2011 survey continue to show this strength. For example, Otay Water District customers
demonstrate a high level of satisfaction with the District as their provider of water service.
Customers also have a great deal of confidence in the ability of the District to provide clean and
safe water for its customers.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 44
Water is rated as the second best value for the money paid by customers while trash collection is
given the highest value. In 2008, water was also a close second to trash collection as the utility
with the highest customer value. In 2009, water was rated as the best value.
Customers are very aware that water rates have increased, and this knowledge has prompted a
greater motivation to conserve water. Customers continue to support alternative sources of water
including the use of recycled water for watering golf courses, open space and along freeways.
They also support recycled water for use on lawns and public landscape and in replenishing
recreational lakes. Customers also strongly support ocean water desalination but not quite one-
half are in favor of an international agreement with Mexico to promote or facilitate desalination.
Readership of the bill inserts, the monthly newsletter and the annual Consumer Confidence
Report show an upward trend. Visitation of the District website is also rising and the rating of the
website has increased as well. Customers of the District support the potential use of social media
websites by the District to disseminate information and to otherwise communicate with
customers.
The results of this survey should be viewed as ratification by the public of the importance and
quality of the work done by the District and as an expression of the high value to the public of the
work in which the Otay Water District is engaged.
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 45
APPENDIX
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 46
Otay Water District
General Survey 2011
INT. Hello, my name is _______________. I'm calling on behalf of the Otay Water
District. We're conducting a study about some issues having to do with your
household water supply and we're interested in your opinions. [IF NEEDED:]
Are you at least 18 years of age or older? [IF 18+ HOUSEHOLDER NOT
AVAILABLE NOW, ASK FOR FIRST NAME AND MAKE CB
ARRANGEMENTS]
VER. [VERSION OF INTERVIEW:] 1 - VERSION A 2 - VERSION B*
* = RESPONSE OPTIONS REVERSED ON VERSION B FOR ALL QUESTIONS INDICATED
IC. Let me assure you that no names or addresses are associated with the
telephone numbers, and all of your responses are completely anonymous. The
questions take about ten minutes. To ensure that my work is done honestly and
correctly, this call may be monitored. Do you have a few minutes right now?
[IF ASKED ABOUT MONITORING:] My supervisor randomly listens to
interviews to make sure we're reading the questions exactly as written and not
influencing answers in any way.
TOP. [ONLY IF ASKED FOR MORE INFORMATION ABOUT TOPIC OR WHO'S
SPONSORING IT?:] This project is sponsored by the Otay Water District, and
it's about some issues related to your household water supply. [IF SPONSOR
INFORMATION GIVEN TO RESPONDENT, "TOPIC"=1]
CUST. How long have you been a customer of the Otay Water District? [IF LESS THAN
ONE YEAR, THANK AND CODE NQR-RES]
_________ YEARS
0 -----------> "NQR-RES"
99 - DK/REF, BUT AT LEAST ONE YEAR
SEX. [RECORD GENDER OF RESPONDENT:]
1 - MALE
2 - FEMALE
-------------------------- QUALIFIED RESPONDENT: QUOTAS CHECKED; DATA SAVED ------------------------
-
LP. [IF INDICATED BY ACCENT:] Would you prefer that we speak in...
1 - English or
2 - Spanish?
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 47
Q1. How would you describe your household's level of interest in conserving water at
home? Would you say...* [REVERSE]
1 - a high level of interest,
2 - a moderate level,
3 - a low level, or
4 - no interest at all?
9 - DK/REF
Q2. During the past year, would you say your household's awareness of water
conservation has been...* [REVERSE 1 - 3 ONLY]
1 - increasing,
2 - staying about the same,
3 - decreasing,
4 - or are you not sure? [INCLUDES DK/REF]
Q3. These next questions are related to the water supply in San Diego County. How
confident are you in the ability of local water agencies to provide enough water to
you? Would you say...* [REVERSE]
1 - very confident,
2 - somewhat confident,
3 - not very confident,
4 - not at all confident,
5 - or are you not sure? [INCLUDES DK/REF]
Q4. How much trust do you have in the ability of the Otay Water District to provide
clean, safe water to the district? Would you say...* [REVERSE]
1 – a great deal of trust,
2 – a good amount of trust,
3 – some trust,
4 -- not much trust,
5 – no trust at all?
9 -- not sure [INCLUDES DK/REF]
Q4a. How much trust do you have in the Otay Water District to obtain this water
for you at a reasonable price? Would you say…[REVERSE]
1 – a great deal of trust,
2 – a good amount of trust,
3 – some trust,
4 -- not much trust,
5 – no trust at all?
9 -- not sure [INCLUDES DK/REF]
WATER SHORTAGE------------WATER RATES
Q5a-c. I am going to mention six utilities that serve the needs of residents and
businesses in the region. Considering only those utilities that you pay for,
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 48
which would you say is the best value for the amount of money that you
pay. Which ones are second and third? [ROTATE LIST]
MOST (5a) SECOND (5b) THIRD (5c)
a. Trash collection 1 1 1
b. Water 2 2 2
c. Sewer 3 3 3
d. Telephone 4 4 4
e. Cable or Satellite TV 5 5 5
f. Internet access 6 6 6
g. Gas & Electric 7 7 7
Q6. In the past year, do you believe that your water rates have...
1 - gone up,
2 - gone down, -----------> GO TO Q7
3 - stayed about the same, -----------> GO TO Q7
4 - or are you not sure? -----------> GO TO Q7
9 - REF-----------> GO TO Q7
Q6a. [IF Q6=1] Have higher water rates motivated you to conserve more
water?
1 – YES
2 - NO-----------> GO TO Q7
9 - DK/REF-----------> GO TO Q7
Q6b. [IF Q6a=1] What specific major step has your household taken in the
past six months to reduce your water usage?
________________________________________99-DK/REF
[DO NOT READ-------------CODE USING FOLLOWING
SCHEMA:]
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 49
1 – OUTDOOR WATER LESS TIME
2 - USE THE WATERING CALCULATOR FOUND ON THE
DISTRICT’S WEBSITE OR AT
WWW.BEWATERWISE.COM TO SET A WATER-WISE
IRRIGATION SCHEDULE
3 - IRRIGATE EARLIER IN THE MORNING OR LATER AT
NIGHT
4—LET MY LANDSCAPE/LAWN DIE
5 - OUTDOOR WATERING FEWER DAYS DAY PER WEEK
6 - CHECK THE SOIL’S MOISTURE LEVEL BEFORE
WATERING
7 - REPLACE UNUSED TURF WITH LOW-WATER PLANTS
8 - UPGRADE IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO INCLUDE NEW,
HIGH-EFFICIENCY EQUIPMENT
9 – PURCHASE A HIGH EFFFICENCY CLOTHES WASHER
10 – WASH ONLY FULL LOADS OF CLOTHES OR DISHES
11 – TAKE SHORTER SHOWERS
12 – USE A BROOM INSTEAD OF A HOSE ON PAVED
AREAS
13 – FIX INDOOR LEAKS (TOILET, FAUCET, ETC.)
14 – FIX OUTDOOR LEAKS (SPRINKLERS, SPAS, ETC.)
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 50
15-- DO NOT LET WATER RUN
16 – COLLECT AND REUSE
17 – REPLACE GRASS WITH ARTIFICIAL/SYNTHETIC TURF
20 – OTHER, SPECIFY___
________________________________
99—DK/REF
OUTDOOR WATERING---ASK EVERYONE
Q7. These next few questions deal with saving water outdoors. Does your residence
have any outdoor landscaping that someone in your household is directly
responsible for maintaining?
1 - YES
2 - NO/APT/CONDO/NO YARD RESPONSIBILITIES ------------> GO TO Q8
9 - DK/REF ------------> GO TO Q8
Q7a. Does your landscaping include a lawn?
1 - YES
2 - NO
9 - DK/REF
Q7b. Do you have an automatically-controlled sprinkler system for your
landscaping?
1 - YES
2 - NO ------------> GO TO Q8
9 - DK/REF ------------> GO TO Q8
Q7c. [IF Q7b = 1] During the past 12 months, how often has
anyone made adjustments to the automatic controller for your
sprinkler system?
1 - NOT AT ALL
2 - 1 TO 3 TIMES
3 - 4 to 6 TIMES
4 –7 OR MORE TIMES
5 - USE WEATHER-BASED CONTROLLER
9 - DK/REF
DESALINATION
Q8. These next questions are about desalination. Are you familiar with the term
“desalination.”
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 51
1. YES
2. NO (include DK/REF) [GO TO Q9]
Q8a. [IF Q8 = 1]. How would you describe what desalination is?
___________________________________________________
[NOTE: Code all responses that refer to making drinking water from
ocean or other salty water as 1. List the rest verbatim.]
Q9. [IF Q8a = 1, then start with “As you indicated,”] Desalination is the process of
making drinking water and water for other household and business uses from
ocean water. Desalination is a process that forces water through a very fine
filter that is designed to remove ocean salts and other impurities from the
ocean water.
Do you believe that desalination is important to maintaining a reliable supply of
water in San Diego County?
1- Yes, very important
2- Yes, somewhat important
3- No, not very important
4- No, not at all important
5- DK/REF---[DO NOT READ—ONLY IF VOLUNTEERED]
Q10. AN OCEAN WATER DESALINATION PLANT IS TENTATIVELY
PLANNED FOR THE CITY OF ROSARITO BEACH IN MEXICO AND THE
OTAY WATER DISTRICT HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO PURCHASE
SOME OF THAT WATER STARTING IN 2014 OR 2015. THIS PROJECT
WOULD BE FINANCED AND OPERATED BY INTERNATIONAL
COMPANIES WITH CONSIDERABLE EXPERIENCE IN OCEAN WATER
DESALINATION, WITH TIJUANA, ROSARITO BEACH, AND THE OTAY
WATER DISTRICT BEING THE PLANT’S CUSTOMERS.
Would you be in favor of pursuing such an agreement with these international
companies to develop additional supplies of water from seawater desalination?
1. Yes—GO TO Q11
2. No
3. DK/REF—GO TO Q11
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 52
Q10b. [IF Q10 = 2] Why are you not in favor of this desalination
agreement?
__________________________________________________________
WATER RECYCLING
Q11a-d. The use of recycled water is another way to increase the water supply. Would
you favor or oppose the use of recycled water for the following types of uses...
[CLARIFY:] Do you strongly or somewhat {favor/oppose} that?
strgly smwt smwt strgly
DK/
Do you favor or oppose using recycled water... favor favor oppose oppose
REF
a) for watering landscaping along freeways
open space, parks and golf courses? 1 2 3 4 9
b) for watering residential front yards? 1 2 3 4
9
c) for replenishing recreational lakes? 1 2 3 4
9
d) as an addition to the supply of
drinking water 1 2 3 4
9
CONSERVATION GARDEN
Q12. Have you ever seen or heard anything about the Water Conservation
Garden at Cuyamaca College?
1 - YES
2 - NO------------> GO TO Q13
9 - DK/REF ------------> GO TO Q13
Q12a. [IF YES:] Have you or any member of your family ever visited the
garden?
1 - YES
2 - NO ------------> GO TO Q13
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 53
9 - DK/REF ------------> GO TO Q13
Q12b. Have you made any changes to your watering or landscaping practices as a result of visiting the
Garden?
1 – YES
2 – NO—GO TO Q13
9 -- DK/REF—GO TO Q13
Q12c. [IF Q 12b = 1] What is the most significant change you have
made as a result of visiting the garden?
[DO NOT READ-------------CODE USING FOLLOWING SCHEMA]
1. Adjusted sprinklers/reduced water usage
2. Changed plants to be more drought-
tolerant/waterwise
3. Eliminated plants/let plants die
4. Eliminated lawn/let lawn die—replaced with
waterwise ground cover
5. Replaced unused turf with low-water plants
6. Check the soil’s moisture level before watering
7. Upgraded irrigation system to include new,
higher-efficiency equipment
9. Other, specify
_______________________________
PUBLICATIONS
Q13. Do you read the newsletter or bill inserts that come in the mail with your monthly water bill…
1 - every time,
2 - most times,
3 - sometimes, or
4 - never?
5 - DK/REF
Q14 The Otay Water District provides each customer household with an annual
Consumer Confidence Report before July 1st of each year. Have you ever read
this report?
1 - YES
2 – NO
3 - DK/REF
SOCIAL MEDIA
Q15a-e. Which, if any, of the following social media websites do you use?
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 54
YES NO (incl.
DK)
a. Facebook
b. Twitter
c. LinkedIn
d. My Space
e. You Tube
Q16a-f. Do you think that the Otay Water District can use these sites for your benefit to
YES NO DK
a. notify you about scheduled construction
or system repairs
b. ask questions and receive comments
about your satisfaction with services
c. distribute emergency information
d. discuss water industry news and
new developments
e. communicate information about the District
Q17. On a scale of 1-5, with 1 being very important and 5 being very unimportant, how
important is it to you that the Otay Water District have a presence using social media?
1. Very important
2. Somewhat important
3 Neither Important nor important
4 Somewhat unimportant
5. Very Unimportant
WEBSITE
Q18. Have you ever visited the Otay Water District website?
1 - YES
2 – HAVE ACCESS TO INTERNET, BUT HAVE NOT VISITED WEBSITE
-----------------------> GO TO Q22
3—DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET----------ÆGO TO Q23
9 - DK/REF -----------------> GO TO Q23
Q18a. [IF Q18 = 1] How would you rate the website? Would you say...
1 - excellent,
2 - good,
3 - fair, or
4 - poor?
9 - DK/REF
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 55
BILL PAYMENT
Q19. How do you pay your water bill most months?
1—Send check by mail
2—Automatic bank deduction
3—Credit card over the telephone
4—In person at the Otay Water District office
5—In person at payment center
6—On-line (Internet) [GO TO Q20]
Q19a. [IF Q19 not = 6]. Why do you not pay on-line using the District’s website?
DO NOT VOLUNTEER
1. I do not trust that my banking data is secure
2. I do not use the Internet
3. I feel more in control of my money when I write the checks
4. Easier for my own accounting/taxes
5. Other, _________________________________________
6. DK/REF [DO NOT VOLUNTEER]
Q19b. [IF Q19 not = 6] What can the District do to make paying on-line through
the District’s Website a more appealing option for you?
_______________________________________________________________
DK/REF = 99
[IF Q19b = 99, GO TO Q20]
Q19c. [IF any answer given to Q19b] If the District were to do that, how much
more likely would you be to pay on-line? Would you say..
1. Very likely
2. Somewhat likely
3. Somewhat unlikely
4. Very unlikely
5. DK/REF [DO NOT VOLUNTEER]
Q20. No matter how you presently pay your bill, how would you prefer to pay your bill
most of the time?
1—Send check by mail
2—Automatic bank deduction
3—Credit card over the telephone
4—In person at the Otay Water District office
5—In person at payment center
6—On-line (Internet)
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 56
Q21 Would you be interested in receiving your monthly bill from the Otay Water
District by e-mail instead of through the Postal Service?
1 - YES
2 - NO
9 - DK/REF
Q22. How likely are you to choose to go paperless in your bill paying to the District and
other regular monthly accounts within the next year or two? That is, you would receive
your bill by e-mail and would make your payments in one of several ways (phone, online,
automatic deduction) but not by check or cash.
1. Very likely
2. Somewhat likely
3. Somewhat unlikely
4. Very unlikely
5. DK/REF [DO NOT VOLUNTEER]
Q22a. [IF Q22 =3 or 4] What is your major objection to the District going
paperless?
_______________________________________________
SATISFACTION
Q23: How would you rate your overall satisfaction with the Otay Water District as your
water service provider?
1---Excellent
2---Very Good
3—Good
4---Fair
5—Poor
6---Very Poor
9—DK/REF
Q24: Have you called the Otay Water District for service or other help during
the past
6 months?
1 - YES
2 - NO – [GO TO PPH]
9 - DK/REF – [GO TO PPH]
Q24a-- How would you rate your overall level of satisfaction with the service you
received when you called for service or help?
1---Excellent
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 57
2---Very Good
3—Good
4---Fair
5—Poor
6---Very Poor
9—DK/REF
ASK ALL:
In closing, these questions are for comparison purposes only.
PPH. How many persons, including yourself, live in your household?
___________
99 - DK/REF
TEN. Is your residence owned by someone in your household, or is it rented?
1 - OWN
2 - RENT/OTHER STATUS
9 - DK/REF
EDU. What is the highest grade or year of school that you have completed and
received credit for...
1 - high school or less,
2 - at least one year of college, trade or vocational school,
3 - graduated college with a bachelor's degree, or
4 - at least one year of graduate work beyond a bachelor's degree?
9 - DK/REF
AGE. Please tell me when I mention the category that contains your age...
1 - 18 to 24,
2 - 25 to 34,
3 - 35 to 44,
4 - 45 to 54,
5 - 55 to 64, or
6 - 65 or over?
9 - DK/REF
ETH. Which of the following best describes your ethnic or racial background...
1 - white, not of Hispanic origin;
2 - black, not of Hispanic origin;
3 - Hispanic or Latino;
4 - Asian or Pacific Islander;
5 - Native American; or
6 - another ethnic group? [SPECIFY:] __________________________________
9 - DK/REF
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 58
INC. Now, we don't want to know your exact income, but just roughly, could
you tell me if your annual household income before taxes is...
1 - under $25,000,
2 - $25,000 up to but not including $50,000,
3 - $50,000 up to (but not including) $75,000,
4 - $75,000 up to (but not including) $100,000, or
5 - $100,000 up to but not including $150,000?
9 - DK/REF
LAN. [LANGUAGE OF INTERVIEW:] 1 - ENGLISH 2 - SPANISH
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 59
Frequency Table
q1 How would you describe your household's level of interest in conserving water at
home? Would you say...
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid A high level of interest 175 56.8 56.8 56.8
A moderate level 98 31.8 31.8 88.6
A low level 10 3.2 3.2 91.9
No interest at all 2 .6 .6 92.5
DK/Refused 23 7.5 7.5 100.0
Total 308 100.0 100.0
q2 During the past year, would you say your household's awareness of water conservation has
been...
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Increasing 131 42.5 48.0 48.0
Staying about the same, 123 39.9 45.1 93.0
Decreasing 19 6.2 7.0 100.0
Total 273 88.6 100.0
Missing Not sure (includes Dk/Refused) 35 11.4
Total 308 100.0
q3 These next questions are related to the water supply in San Diego County. How confident
are you in the ability of local water agencies to provide enough water to you? Would you say..
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Very confident 103 33.4 41.5 41.5
Somewhat confident 127 41.2 51.2 92.7
Not Very Confident 16 5.2 6.5 99.2
Not at all confident 2 .6 .8 100.0
Total 248 80.5 100.0
Missing Not sure (includes
Dk/refused)
60 19.5
Total 308 100.0
q4 How much trust do you have in the ability of the Otay Water District to provide clean, safe
water to the district? Would you say..
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 60
Valid A great deal of trust 96 31.2 36.8 36.8
A good amount of trust 107 34.7 41.0 77.8
Some trust 50 16.2 19.2 96.9
Not much trust 5 1.6 1.9 98.9
No trust at all 3 1.0 1.1 100.0
Total 261 84.7 100.0
Missing Not sure (includes
Dk/refused)
47 15.3
Total 308 100.0
q4a How much trust do you have in the Otay Water District to obtain this water for you at a
reasonable price? Would you say...
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid A great deal of trust 30 9.7 11.8 11.8
A good amount of trust 72 23.4 28.2 40.0
Some trust 105 34.1 41.2 81.2
Not much trust 33 10.7 12.9 94.1
No trust at all 15 4.9 5.9 100.0
Total 255 82.8 100.0
Missing Not sure (includes
Dk/refused)
53 17.2
Total 308 100.0
q5_1 Best utility value
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Trash collection 82 26.6 36.3 36.3
Water 49 15.9 21.7 58.0
Sewer 6 1.9 2.7 60.6
Telephone 27 8.8 11.9 72.6
Cable or Satellite TV 12 3.9 5.3 77.9
Internet access 7 2.3 3.1 81.0
Gas & Electric 43 14.0 19.0 100.0
Total 226 73.4 100.0
Missing Don't know 60 19.5
System 22 7.1
Total 82 26.6
Total 308 100.0
q5_2 Second best utility value
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Trash Collection 30 9.7 20.7 20.7
Water 41 13.3 28.3 49.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 61
Sewer 9 2.9 6.2 55.2
Telephone 11 3.6 7.6 62.8
Cable or Satellite TV 10 3.2 6.9 69.7
Internet access 18 5.8 12.4 82.1
Gas & Electric 26 8.4 17.9 100.0
Total 145 47.1 100.0
Missing System 163 52.9
Total 308 100.0
q5_3 Third best utility value
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Trash collection 21 6.8 28.0 28.0
Water 11 3.6 14.7 42.7
Sewer 4 1.3 5.3 48.0
Telephone 8 2.6 10.7 58.7
Cable or Satellite TV 8 2.6 10.7 69.3
Internet access 6 1.9 8.0 77.3
Gas & Electric 17 5.5 22.7 100.0
Total 75 24.4 100.0
Missing System 233 75.6
Total 308 100.0
q6 In the past year, do you believe that your water rates have..
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Gone up 205 66.6 70.2 70.2
Gone down 7 2.3 2.4 72.6
Stayed about the same 38 12.3 13.0 85.6
Not sure 42 13.6 14.4 100.0
Total 292 94.8 100.0
Missing Refused 16 5.2
Total 308 100.0
q6a Have higher water rates motivated you to conserve more water?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 145 47.1 75.9 75.9
No 46 14.9 24.1 100.0
Total 191 62.0 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 12 3.9
System 105 34.1
Total 117 38.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 62
Total 308 100.0
q6b_1 What specific major step has your household taken in the past six months to reduce
water usage?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Outdoor water less time 40 13.0 29.2 29.2
Irrigate earlier in the morning or later at
night
12 3.9 8.8 38.0
Let my landscape/lawn die 11 3.6 8.0 46.0
Outdoor watering fewer days per week 11 3.6 8.0 54.0
Replace unused turf with low-water plants 3 1.0 2.2 56.2
Upgrade irrigation systems to new
high/efficiency equipment
3 1.0 2.2 58.4
Purchase a high efficiency clothes washer
or low-flow fixtures
5 1.6 3.6 62.0
Wash only full loads of clothes or dishes 9 2.9 6.6 68.6
Take shorter showers 15 4.9 10.9 79.6
Use a broom instead of a hose on paved
areas
1 .3 .7 80.3
Fix indoor leaks (toilet, faucet etc.) 4 1.3 2.9 83.2
Fix outdoor leaks (sprinklers, spas etc.) 2 .6 1.5 84.7
Do not let water run 10 3.2 7.3 92.0
Collect and reuse 3 1.0 2.2 94.2
Other 6 1.9 4.4 98.5
Nothing 2 .6 1.5 100.0
Total 137 44.5 100.0
Missing Don't know/refused 4 1.3
System 167 54.2
Total 171 55.5
Total 308 100.0
q6b_2 What specific major step has your household taken in the past six months to reduce
water usage?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Outdoor water less time 12 3.9 15.2 15.2
Irrigate earlier in the morning or later at
night
2 .6 2.5 17.7
Let my landscape/lawn die 3 1.0 3.8 21.5
Outdoor watering fewer days per week 7 2.3 8.9 30.4
Upgrade irrigation systems to new
high/efficiency equipment
2 .6 2.5 32.9
Purchase a high efficiency clothes washer
or low-flow fixtures
4 1.3 5.1 38.0
Wash only full loads of clothes or dishes 11 3.6 13.9 51.9
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 63
Take shorter showers 20 6.5 25.3 77.2
Use a broom instead of a hose on paved
areas
1 .3 1.3 78.5
Fix indoor leaks (toilet, faucet etc.) 2 .6 2.5 81.0
Fix outdoor leaks (sprinklers, spas etc.) 5 1.6 6.3 87.3
Do not let water run 6 1.9 7.6 94.9
Collect and reuse 2 .6 2.5 97.5
Replace grass with artificial/synthetic turf 1 .3 1.3 98.7
Other 1 .3 1.3 100.0
Total 79 25.6 100.0
Missing System 229 74.4
Total 308 100.0
q6b_3 What specific major step has your household taken in the past six months to reduce
water usage?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Outdoor water less time 4 1.3 11.4 11.4
Irrigate earlier in the morning or later at
night
1 .3 2.9 14.3
Outdoor watering fewer days per week 2 .6 5.7 20.0
Replace unused turf with low-water plants 3 1.0 8.6 28.6
Purchase a high efficiency clothes washer
or low-flow fixtures
1 .3 2.9 31.4
Wash only full loads of clothes or dishes 6 1.9 17.1 48.6
Take shorter showers 3 1.0 8.6 57.1
Use a broom instead of a hose on paved
areas
4 1.3 11.4 68.6
Fix indoor leaks (toilet, faucet etc.) 2 .6 5.7 74.3
Fix outdoor leaks (sprinklers, spas etc.) 1 .3 2.9 77.1
Do not let water run 5 1.6 14.3 91.4
Collect and reuse 2 .6 5.7 97.1
Other 1 .3 2.9 100.0
Total 35 11.4 100.0
Missing System 273 88.6
Total 308 100.0
q6b_4 What specific major step has your household taken in the past six months to reduce
water usage?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Irrigate earlier in the morning or later at
night
1.3 5.6 5.6
Purchase a high efficiency clothes washer
or low-flow fixtures
2 .6 11.1 16.7
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 64
Wash only full loads of clothes or dishes 2 .6 11.1 27.8
Take shorter showers 2 .6 11.1 38.9
Use a broom instead of a hose on paved
areas
3 1.0 16.7 55.6
Fix indoor leaks (toilet, faucet etc.) 4 1.3 22.2 77.8
Fix outdoor leaks (sprinklers, spas etc.) 2 .6 11.1 88.9
Do not let water run 2 .6 11.1 100.0
Total 18 5.8 100.0
Missing System 290 94.2
Total 308 100.0
q6b_5 What specific major step has your household taken in the past six months to reduce
water usage?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Irrigate earlier in the morning or later at
night
1.3 6.7 6.7
Check soil's moisture level before
watering
1 .3 6.7 13.3
Wash only full loads of clothes or
dishes
3 1.0 20.0 33.3
Take shorter showers 1 .3 6.7 40.0
Use a broom instead of a hose on
paved areas
1 .3 6.7 46.7
Fix indoor leaks (toilet, faucet etc.) 2 .6 13.3 60.0
Fix outdoor leaks (sprinklers, spas etc.) 4 1.3 26.7 86.7
Do not let water run 1 .3 6.7 93.3
Collect and reuse 1 .3 6.7 100.0
Total 15 4.9 100.0
Missing System 293 95.1
Total 308 100.0
q6b_6 What specific major step has your household taken in the past six months to reduce
water usage?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Irrigate earlier in the morning or later at
night
1 .3 10.0 10.0
Take shorter showers 1 .3 10.0 20.0
Use a broom instead of a hose on
paved areas
2 .6 20.0 40.0
Do not let water run 5 1.6 50.0 90.0
Collect and reuse 1 .3 10.0 100.0
Total 10 3.2 100.0
Missing System 298 96.8
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 65
Total 308 100.0
q7 These next few questions deal with saving water outdoors. Does your residence have any
outdoor landscaping that someone in your household is directly responsible for maintaining?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 216 70.1 74.7 74.7
No/Apt/Condo/No Yard
responsibilities
73 23.7 25.3 100.0
Total 289 93.8 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 19 6.2
Total 308 100.0
q7a Does your landscaping include a lawn?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 190 61.7 88.0 88.0
No 26 8.4 12.0 100.0
Total 216 70.1 100.0
Missing System 92 29.9
Total 308 100.0
q7b Do you have an automatically-controlled sprinkler system for your
landscaping?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 172 55.8 79.6 79.6
No 44 14.3 20.4 100.0
Total 216 70.1 100.0
Missing System 92 29.9
Total 308 100.0
q7c During the past 12 months, how often has anyone made adjustments to the automatic
controller for your sprinkler system?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Not at all 16 5.2 9.3 9.3
1 to 3 times 40 13.0 23.3 32.6
4 to 6 times 44 14.3 25.6 58.1
7 or more times 51 16.6 29.7 87.8
Use weather-based
controller
13 4.2 7.6 95.3
DK/Refused 8 2.6 4.7 100.0
Total 172 55.8 100.0
Missing System 136 44.2
Total 308 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 66
q8 These next questions are about desalination? Are you familiar with the term "desalination."
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 226 73.4 73.6 73.6
No (includes Dk/refused) 81 26.3 26.4 100.0
Total 307 99.7 100.0
Missing System 1 .3
Total 308 100.0
q8a How would you describe what desalination is?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Any ref. to making drinking water from
ocean or salty water
215 69.8 94.7 94.7
Other 2 .6 .9 95.6
Don't know/No answer 10 3.2 4.4 100.0
Total 227 73.7 100.0
Missing System 81 26.3
Total 308 100.0
q8a_o1
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Buy drinking water, water tastes bad 1 50.0 50.0 50.0
Making it clean water 1 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total 2 100.0 100.0
q9 Do you believe that desalination is important to maintaining a reliable supply of water in
San Diego County?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes, very important 184 59.7 59.7 59.7
Yes, somewhat important 58 18.8 18.8 78.6
No, not very important 9 2.9 2.9 81.5
No, not at all important 6 1.9 1.9 83.4
DK/Refused 51 16.6 16.6 100.0
Total 308 100.0 100.0
q10 Would you be in favor of pursuing agreement with international companies
to develop additional supplies of water from seawater desalination
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 141 45.8 45.8 45.8
No 104 33.8 33.8 79.5
DK/Refused 63 20.5 20.5 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 67
Total 308 100.0 100.0
q10a Why are you not in favor of this desalination agreement?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Questionable water quality 12 3.9 11.5 11.5
It should be done in U.S. 27 8.8 26.0 37.5
Do not trust/want to deal with Mexico 26 8.4 25.0 62.5
High cost 9 2.9 8.7 71.2
Do not know enough yet 4 1.3 3.8 75.0
Do not want to drink sea water 5 1.6 4.8 79.8
Lack of control 6 1.9 5.8 85.6
Just do not like the idea 3 1.0 2.9 88.5
No Reason/Don't know 12 3.9 11.5 100.0
Total 104 33.8 100.0
Missing System 204 66.2
Total 308 100.0
q11_1 Do you favor or oppose using recycled water for watering landscapes along
freeways open space, parks and golf courses?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly favor 239 77.6 77.6 77.6
Somewhat favor 43 14.0 14.0 91.6
Somewhat oppose 6 1.9 1.9 93.5
Strongly oppose 5 1.6 1.6 95.1
DK/Refused 15 4.9 4.9 100.0
Total 308 100.0 100.0
q11_2 Do you favor or oppose using recycled water for watering residential front
yard?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly favor 208 67.5 67.5 67.5
Somewhat favor 58 18.8 18.8 86.4
Somewhat oppose 15 4.9 4.9 91.2
Strongly oppose 8 2.6 2.6 93.8
DK/Refused 19 6.2 6.2 100.0
Total 308 100.0 100.0
q11_3 Do you favor or oppose using recycled water for replenishing recreational
lakes?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly favor 146 47.4 47.4 47.4
Somewhat favor 66 21.4 21.4 68.8
Somewhat oppose 27 8.8 8.8 77.6
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 68
Strongly oppose 30 9.7 9.7 87.3
DK/Refused 39 12.7 12.7 100.0
Total 308 100.0 100.0
q11_4 Do you favor or oppose using recycled water as an addition to the supply of
drinking water?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Strongly favor 48 15.6 15.6 15.6
Somewhat favor 41 13.3 13.3 28.9
Somewhat oppose 45 14.6 14.6 43.5
Strongly oppose 129 41.9 41.9 85.4
DK/Refused 45 14.6 14.6 100.0
Total 308 100.0 100.0
q12 Have you ever seen or heard anything about the Water Conservation Garden
at Cuyamaca College?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 147 47.7 48.7 48.7
No 155 50.3 51.3 100.0
Total 302 98.1 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 6 1.9
Total 308 100.0
q12a Have you or any member of the family ever visited the garden?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 49 15.9 33.3 33.3
No 98 31.8 66.7 100.0
Total 147 47.7 100.0
Missing System 161 52.3
Total 308 100.0
q12b Have you made any changes to your watering landscaping as a result of
visiting the Garden?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 24 7.8 48.0 48.0
No 26 8.4 52.0 100.0
Total 50 16.2 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 1 .3
System 257 83.4
Total 258 83.8
Total 308 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 69
q12c What is the most significant change you have made as a result of visiting the garden?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Adjusted sprinklers/reduced water usage 3 1.0 13.0 13.0
Changed plants to be more drought-
tolerant/water-wise
9 2.9 39.1 52.2
Eliminated plants/let plants die 1 .3 4.3 56.5
Eliminated lawn/let lawn die-replaced with
water-wise ground
3 1.0 13.0 69.6
Replaced unused turf with low-water plants 1 .3 4.3 73.9
Upgrd.irrigation system to new, higher
efficiency equipment
2 .6 8.7 82.6
Collect and reuse 3 1.0 13.0 95.7
Other (specify) 1 .3 4.3 100.0
Total 23 7.5 100.0
Missing None 1 .3
System 284 92.2
Total 285 92.5
Total 308 100.0
q12c_o1
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Using compost into the dirt. 1 100.0 100.0 100.0
q13 Do you read the newsletter or bill inserts that come in the mail with your
monthly water bill?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Every time 73 23.7 24.2 24.2
Most times 75 24.4 24.8 49.0
Sometimes 102 33.1 33.8 82.8
Never 52 16.9 17.2 100.0
Total 302 98.1 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 6 1.9
Total 308 100.0
q14 The Otay Water District provides each customer household with an annual
Consumer Confidence Report before July 1st of each year. Have you ever read
this report?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 120 39.0 43.8 43.8
No 154 50.0 56.2 100.0
Total 274 89.0 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 34 11.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 70
Total 308 100.0
q15_1 Which, if any, of the following social media websites do you use?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Facebook 75 24.4 62.5 62.5
Twitter 2 .6 1.7 64.2
LinkedIn 5 1.6 4.2 68.3
MySpace 2 .6 1.7 70.0
You Tube 36 11.7 30.0 100.0
Total 120 39.0 100.0
Missing System 188 61.0
Total 308 100.0
q15_2 Which, if any, of the following social media websites do you use?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Facebook 4 1.3 12.9 12.9
Twitter 4 1.3 12.9 25.8
LinkedIn 4 1.3 12.9 38.7
MySpace 4 1.3 12.9 51.6
You Tube 15 4.9 48.4 100.0
Total 31 10.1 100.0
Missing System 277 89.9
Total 308 100.0
q15_3 Which, if any, of the following social media websites do you use?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Facebook 1 .3 11.1 11.1
Twitter 1 .3 11.1 22.2
LinkedIn 3 1.0 33.3 55.6
MySpace 1 .3 11.1 66.7
You Tube 3 1.0 33.3 100.0
Total 9 2.9 100.0
Missing System 299 97.1
Total 308 100.0
q15_4 Which, if any, of the following social media websites do you use?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Twitter 1 .3 20.0 20.0
LinkedIn 1 .3 20.0 40.0
MySpace 1 .3 20.0 60.0
You Tube 2 .6 40.0 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 71
Total 5 1.6 100.0
Missing System 303 98.4
Total 308 100.0
q15_5 Which, if any, of the following social media websites do you use?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid MySpace 2 .6 66.7 66.7
You Tube 1 .3 33.3 100.0
Total 3 1.0 100.0
Missing System 305 99.0
Total 308 100.0
q16_1 Do you think the Otay Water District can use these sites for your benefit
to notify you about scheduled construction or system repairs?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 116 37.7 37.7 37.7
No 144 46.8 46.8 84.4
Don't know 48 15.6 15.6 100.0
Total 308 100.0 100.0
q16_2 To ask questions and receive comments about your satisfaction with
services?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 130 42.2 42.2 42.2
No 130 42.2 42.2 84.4
Don't know 48 15.6 15.6 100.0
Total 308 100.0 100.0
q16_3 To distribute emergency information?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 121 39.3 39.3 39.3
No 134 43.5 43.5 82.8
Don't know 53 17.2 17.2 100.0
Total 308 100.0 100.0
q16_4 Discuss water industry news and new developments?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 118 38.3 38.3 38.3
No 134 43.5 43.5 81.8
Don't know 56 18.2 18.2 100.0
Total 308 100.0 100.0
q16_5 communicate information about the District?
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 72
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 123 39.9 39.9 39.9
No 133 43.2 43.2 83.1
Don't know 52 16.9 16.9 100.0
Total 308 100.0 100.0
q17 On a scale of 1-5, with 1 being very important and 5 being very unimportant, how important
is it to you that the Otay Water District have a presence using social media?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Very important 72 23.4 28.1 28.1
Somewhat important 84 27.3 32.8 60.9
Neither important nor
important
33 10.7 12.9 73.8
Somewhat unimportant 27 8.8 10.5 84.4
Very unimportant 40 13.0 15.6 100.0
Total 256 83.1 100.0
Missing DK/Unsure 52 16.9
Total 308 100.0
q18 Have you ever visited the Otay Water District website?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 113 36.7 39.2 39.2
Have access to internet, but have not
visited the website
140 45.5 48.6 87.8
Do not have access to the internet 35 11.4 12.2 100.0
Total 288 93.5 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 20 6.5
Total 308 100.0
q18a How would you rate the website? Would you say..
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Excellent 18 5.8 18.0 18.0
Good 56 18.2 56.0 74.0
Fair 24 7.8 24.0 98.0
Poor 2 .6 2.0 100.0
Total 100 32.5 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 13 4.2
System 195 63.3
Total 208 67.5
Total 308 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 73
q19 How do you pay your water bill most months?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Send check by mail 29 9.4 25.9 25.9
Automatic bank deduction 21 6.8 18.8 44.6
Credit card over the telephone 3 1.0 2.7 47.3
On-line (internet) 59 19.2 52.7 100.0
Total 112 36.4 100.0
Missing DK/Unsure 1 .3
System 195 63.3
Total 196 63.6
Total 308 100.0
q19a Why do you not pay on-line using the District's website?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid I do not trust that my banking data is
secure
5 1.6 11.6 11.6
I do not use the Internet 4 1.3 9.3 20.9
I feel more in control of my money when I
write the checks
6 1.9 14.0 34.9
Easier for my own accounting/taxes 16 5.2 37.2 72.1
Use auto deduction 4 1.3 9.3 81.4
Other 8 2.6 18.6 100.0
Total 43 14.0 100.0
Missing Don't know/No Answer 11 3.6
System 254 82.5
Total 265 86.0
Total 308 100.0
q19a_o1
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1 12.5 12.5 12.5
I have not registered 1 12.5 12.5 25.0
I use the other line 1 12.5 12.5 37.5
They do not give me a discount for
that
1 12.5 12.5 50.0
A matter of habit 1 12.5 12.5 62.5
I just haven't set it up 1 12.5 12.5 75.0
I would charge it but they do not use
Visa
1 12.5 12.5 87.5
I'm old school 1 12.5 12.5 100.0
Total 8 100.0 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 74
q19b What can the District do to make paying on-line through the District's website a more
appealing option for you?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Discounts 8 2.6 14.8 14.8
Do not like online banking 7 2.3 13.0 27.8
Nothing 13 4.2 24.1 51.9
Other 5 1.6 9.3 61.1
No Reason/Don't know 21 6.8 38.9 100.0
Total 54 17.5 100.0
Missing System 254 82.5
Total 308 100.0
What can the District do to make paying on-line through the District's website a more
appealing option for you?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid A simple way without worrying about bills. 1 20.0 20.0 20.0
By this phone call and future newsletters 1 20.0 20.0 40.0
It is unimportant to me 1 20.0 20.0 60.0
Later entry records 1 20.0 20.0 80.0
Register my payment through a bill and use
that information when I pay on line
1 20.0 20.0 100.0
Total 5 100.0 100.0
q19c If the District were to do that, how much more likely would you be to pay on-line?
Would you say..
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Very likely 11 3.6 36.7 36.7
Somewhat likely 10 3.2 33.3 70.0
Somewhat unlikely 2 .6 6.7 76.7
Very unlikely 7 2.3 23.3 100.0
Total 30 9.7 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 3 1.0
System 275 89.3
Total 278 90.3
Total 308 100.0
q20 No matter how you presently pay your bill, how would you prefer to pay your bill most of
the time?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Send check by mail 19 6.2 16.8 16.8
Automatic bank deduction 21 6.8 18.6 35.4
Credit card over the telephone 2 .6 1.8 37.2
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 75
On-line (internet) 65 21.1 57.5 94.7
DK/NA 6 1.9 5.3 100.0
Total 113 36.7 100.0
Missing System 195 63.3
Total 308 100.0
q21 Would you be interested in receiving your monthly bill from the Otay Water
District by e-mail instead of through the Postal Service?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Yes 56 18.2 49.6 49.6
No 51 16.6 45.1 94.7
DK/Refused 6 1.9 5.3 100.0
Total 113 36.7 100.0
Missing System 195 63.3
Total 308 100.0
q22 How likely are you to choose to go paperless in your bill paying to the District in the
next year or two? You would receive your bill by e-mail and you would make payment
either (phone, online, automatic deduction) but not by check or cash?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Very likely 85 27.6 38.3 38.3
Somewhat likely 43 14.0 19.4 57.7
Somewhat unlikely 23 7.5 10.4 68.0
Very unlikely 71 23.1 32.0 100.0
Total 222 72.1 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 31 10.1
System 55 17.9
Total 86 27.9
Total 308 100.0
q22a What is your major objection to the District going paperless?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid Want paper record 19 6.2 20.2 20.2
Computer failure 5 1.6 5.3 25.5
Trust/security 5 1.6 5.3 30.9
Do not use computers that often 16 5.2 17.0 47.9
No personal records on the computer 5 1.6 5.3 53.2
Used to paying by check 13 4.2 13.8 67.0
I will forget to check for the bill on the
computer
5 1.6 5.3 72.3
Other 4 1.3 4.3 76.6
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 76
No objection 3 1.0 3.2 79.8
No reason/Don't know 19 6.2 20.2 100.0
Total 94 30.5 100.0
Missing System 214 69.5
Total 308 100.0
What is your major objection to the District going paperless?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid I pay through auto deduct 1 25.0 25.0 25.0
I work at the post office if the district goes
paperless I would lose my job I do not want to
lose my job
1 25.0 25.0 50.0
I work for the post office 1 25.0 25.0 75.0
Waste of paper. 1 25.0 25.0 100.0
Total 4 100.0 100.0
q23 How would you rate you overall satisfaction with the Otay Water District as
your water service provider?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Excellent 74 24.0 24.5 24.5
Very Good 116 37.7 38.4 62.9
Good 90 29.2 29.8 92.7
Fair 19 6.2 6.3 99.0
Poor 2 .6 .7 99.7
Very Poor 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 302 98.1 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 6 1.9
Total 308 100.0
q24 Have you called the Otay Water District for service or other help during the
past 6 months?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Yes 53 17.2 17.4 17.4
No 252 81.8 82.6 100.0
Total 305 99.0 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 3 1.0
Total 308 100.0
q24a How would you rate your overall level of satisfaction with the service you
received when you called for service or help?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Excellent 14 4.5 26.4 26.4
Very Good 15 4.9 28.3 54.7
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 77
Good 12 3.9 22.6 77.4
Fair 5 1.6 9.4 86.8
Poor 4 1.3 7.5 94.3
Very Poor 3 1.0 5.7 100.0
Total 53 17.2 100.0
Missing System 255 82.8
Total 308 100.0
Please tell me when I mention the category that contains your age..
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 18 to 24 4 1.3 1.4 1.4
25 to 34 17 5.5 5.8 7.2
35 to 44 67 21.8 22.9 30.1
45 to 54 71 23.1 24.3 54.5
55 to 64 78 25.3 26.7 81.2
65 or over 55 17.9 18.8 100.0
Total 292 94.8 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 16 5.2
Total 308 100.0
How long have you been a customer of the Otay Water District?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 11 3.6 3.6 3.6
2 10 3.2 3.3 6.9
3 10 3.2 3.3 10.2
4 6 1.9 2.0 12.2
5 17 5.5 5.6 17.8
6 6 1.9 2.0 19.7
7 5 1.6 1.6 21.4
8 8 2.6 2.6 24.0
9 3 1.0 1.0 25.0
10 38 12.3 12.5 37.5
11 6 1.9 2.0 39.5
12 14 4.5 4.6 44.1
13 6 1.9 2.0 46.1
14 6 1.9 2.0 48.0
15 18 5.8 5.9 53.9
16 3 1.0 1.0 54.9
17 3 1.0 1.0 55.9
18 3 1.0 1.0 56.9
19 1 .3 .3 57.2
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 78
20 23 7.5 7.6 64.8
21 1 .3 .3 65.1
22 11 3.6 3.6 68.8
23 2 .6 .7 69.4
24 5 1.6 1.6 71.1
25 12 3.9 3.9 75.0
26 5 1.6 1.6 76.6
27 2 .6 .7 77.3
28 1 .3 .3 77.6
29 4 1.3 1.3 78.9
30 26 8.4 8.6 87.5
31 6 1.9 2.0 89.5
32 2 .6 .7 90.1
33 1 .3 .3 90.5
34 5 1.6 1.6 92.1
35 5 1.6 1.6 93.8
36 1 .3 .3 94.1
37 1 .3 .3 94.4
38 1 .3 .3 94.7
39 2 .6 .7 95.4
40 6 1.9 2.0 97.4
41 2 .6 .7 98.0
42 1 .3 .3 98.4
44 2 .6 .7 99.0
45 1 .3 .3 99.3
46 1 .3 .3 99.7
60 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 304 98.7 100.0
Missing 99 4 1.3
Total 308 100.0
What is the highest grade or year of school that you have completed and received credit for..
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid High school or less 48 15.6 16.3 16.3
At least one year of college, trade or
vocational school
71 23.1 24.1 40.5
Graduated college with a bachelor's
degree, or
102 33.1 34.7 75.2
At least one year of graduate work
beyond a BA degree
73 23.7 24.8 100.0
Total 294 95.5 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 14 4.5
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 79
Total 308 100.0
Which of the following best describes your ethnic or racial background..
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid White, not of Hispanic origin 157 51.0 56.1 56.1
Black, not of Hispanic origin 6 1.9 2.1 58.2
Hispanic or Latino 72 23.4 25.7 83.9
Asian or Pacific Islander 39 12.7 13.9 97.9
Native American, or 2 .6 .7 98.6
Another ethnic group 4 1.3 1.4 100.0
Total 280 90.9 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 28 9.1
Total 308 100.0
eth_o1
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 3 75.0 75.0 75.0
American 1 25.0 25.0 100.0
Total 4 100.0 100.0
gender
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Male 154 50.0 50.0 50.0
Female 154 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total 308 100.0 100.0
Now we don't want to know your exact income, but just roughly, could you tell me if your
annual household income before taxes is..
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid under $ 25,000 13 4.2 6.2 6.2
$25,000 up to but not including
$50,000
30 9.7 14.4 20.6
$50,000 up to (but not including)
$75,000
51 16.6 24.4 45.0
$75,000 up to (but not including)
$100.000 or
48 15.6 23.0 67.9
$100.000 up to but not including
$150,000?
47 15.3 22.5 90.4
$150,000 or more 20 6.5 9.6 100.0
Total 209 67.9 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 99 32.1
Total 308 100.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 80
Language of Interview
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid English 295 95.8 96.1 96.1
Spanish 12 3.9 3.9 100.0
Total 307 99.7 100.0
Missing System 1 .3
Total 308 100.0
How many persons, including yourself, live in your household?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 45 14.6 15.0 15.0
2 118 38.3 39.2 54.2
3 44 14.3 14.6 68.8
4 56 18.2 18.6 87.4
5 25 8.1 8.3 95.7
6 7 2.3 2.3 98.0
7 4 1.3 1.3 99.3
9 1 .3 .3 99.7
10 1 .3 .3 100.0
Total 301 97.7 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 7 2.3
Total 308 100.0
Is your residence owned by someone in your household, or is it rented?
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Own 294 95.5 96.7 96.7
Rent/Other Status 10 3.2 3.3 100.0
Total 304 98.7 100.0
Missing DK/Refused 4 1.3
Total 308 100.0
recoded cust
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1-10 years 114 37.0 37.5 37.5
11-15 years 50 16.2 16.4 53.9
16-25 years 64 20.8 21.1 75.0
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 81
26 or more years 76 24.7 25.0 100.0
Total 304 98.7 100.0
Missing System 4 1.3
Total 308 100.0
recoded pph
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid 1 45 14.6 15.0 15.0
2 118 38.3 39.2 54.2
3 44 14.3 14.6 68.8
4 56 18.2 18.6 87.4
5 or more 38 12.3 12.6 100.0
Total 301 97.7 100.0
Missing System 7 2.3
Total 308 100.0
OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES
q8a_o1
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Buy drinking water, water tastes bad 1 50.0 50.0 50.0
Making it clean water 1 50.0 50.0 100.0
Total 2 100.0 100.0
q12c_o1
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent
Valid Using compost into the dirt. 1 100.0 100.0 100.0
q19a_o1
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid 1 12.5 12.5 12.5
I have not registered 1 12.5 12.5 25.0
I use the other line 1 12.5 12.5 37.5
They do not give me a discount for
that
1 12.5 12.5 50.0
A matter of habit 1 12.5 12.5 62.5
I just haven't set it up 1 12.5 12.5 75.0
I would charge it but they do not use 1 12.5 12.5 87.5
Otay Water District Rea & Parker Research
2011 Customer Opinion and Awareness Survey February, 2011 82
Visa
I'm old school 1 12.5 12.5 100.0
Total 8 100.0 100.0
What can the District do to make paying on-line through the District's website a more
appealing option for you?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid A simple way without worrying about bills. 1 20.0 20.0 20.0
By this phone call and future newsletters 1 20.0 20.0 40.0
It is unimportant to me 1 20.0 20.0 60.0
Later entry records 1 20.0 20.0 80.0
Register my payment through a bill and use
that information when I pay on line
1 20.0 20.0 100.0
Total 5 100.0 100.0
What is your major objection to the District going paperless?
Frequency Percent
Valid
Percent
Cumulative
Percent
Valid I pay through auto deduct 1 25.0 25.0 25.0
I work at the post office if the district goes
paperless I would lose my job I do not want to
lose my job
1 25.0 25.0 50.0
I work for the post office 1 25.0 25.0 75.0
Waste of paper. 1 25.0 25.0 100.0
Total 4 100.0 100.0
Customer Satisfaction and Awareness Survey
Otay Water District----------January, 2011
Principal Researchers:
Richard A. Parker, Ph.D.
Louis M. Rea, Ph.D.
Rea & Parker Research
Professors, School of Public Affairs, SDSU
Respondent Characteristics
Characteristic 2011 2009 2008 2006 2005
Ethnicity
White 56%55%52%55%54%
Hispanic/Latino 26%28%30%29%24%
Asian/Pacific Islander 14%8%8%9%15%
Annual Household Income
Median $80,400 $75,700 $83,500 $77,500 $85,000
% over $100,000 32%26%30%33%34%
% under $25,000 6%8%5%6%2%
Age
Median 53 years 53 years 47 years 49 years 47 years
Education
High School or Less 16%17%22%22%14%
At Least One Year College, Trade,
Vocational School
24%32%28%24%33%
Bachelor’s Degree 34%39%33%35%25%
At Least One Year of Graduate Work 24%12%17%19%28%
Customer Satisfaction
Customers demonstrate a high level of overall
satisfaction with the Otay Water District
Rebound to 2008 levels
Substantial level of confidence in the District’s
ability to provide enough water for its
customers
93 percent very confident or somewhat confident (increase from 2008
and 2009) back to 2005-2006 levels
Trust in clean, safe water at highest level
Trust in obtaining water at a reasonable price has declined
Overall high rating of value and quality of the work
done by the Otay Water District.
100%
70%
10%
Chart 1
Overall Satisfaction with otay Water District
as Water Service Provider
(2.21 =mean on 1-6 scale where 1 =Excellent)
•Excellent
•Very Good
•Good
OFair
•Poor
OVery Poor
2011 2010 2009 2008 2006
Chart 2
Confidence in Local Water Agencies to Provide Enough Water
(1.67 =mean confidence on 1-4 scale,where 1 =very confident)
•Very Confident •Somewhat Confident •Not Very Confident •Not at All Confident
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
.-
.'39%46%11%4%
'32%54%12%2%
1~
.:
49%45%5%1%
•=..
.47%43%9%1%
10"1.100%
Chart 3
Trust Otay Water District to Provide Clean,Safe Water
(1.90 =mean on 1-5 scale where 1 =Great Deal ofTrust)
•Great Deal of Trust
•Good Amount of Trust
.Some Trust
o Not Much Trust
•No Trust at All
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2011 2010 2009 2008
In 2006 and 2005,respondents were asked aboot their cmfidence in alay Water District to prevent cmlamination ofwater supply.In 2006,
29%had "not much"or "no"confidence.In 2005,that percenlage was 22%.It should also be noted that there was only one clearly positive
optim in those surveys,skipping from "great deal ofconfidence"to "some cmfidence."
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
Chart 4
Trust Otay Water District to Obtain Water at a Reasonable Price
(2.73 =mean on 1-.5 scale where 1 =Great Deal of Trust)
•Great Deal of Trust
•Good Amount of Trust
•Some Trust
o Not Much Trust
•No Trust at All
2011 2010 2009
2011
Chart 38
Best Value Among Utilities
•Trash Collection •Water OGas &Electric OTelephone OCable TV
19'k
Internet Access •Sewer
12%
2009
2008 15'k 7%5%
90%100%
Conservation
•Continued increasing interest in conservation
•Awareness of conservation measures has
declined
•Higher rates have motivated conservation in 71%
of those who believe that rates have increased—
50 percent overall
•Conservation has focused upon less watering outside (time
and days) and shorter showers less than in the past—
repairing leaks, watering early or late, sweeping driveways
have increased
•Sprinklers being adjusted more frequently
100%
10%
Chart 10
Household"s Level of Interest in Conserving Water
•High Interest
•Moderate Interest
•Low Interest
•No Interest
2011 2009 2008 2006 2005
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
Chart 11
Household's Awareness of Water Conservation During Past Year
•Increasing •Slay the Sam e •Decreasing •Not Sure
43%40%6%11%
63%28%7%2%
52%39%5%4%
34%61%5%
26%61%4%9%
10%20%30%40%60%70%80%90%100%
70%
2011
Chart 8
Conservation Motivated by Higher Rates
(among 70 percent who think that rates have increased)
66%
2009
61%
2008
DYes
.No
DNa!Sure
Chart 9
Conservation Steps Undertaken in Past Year
(by 50 percent who think that rates haw increased and haw laken conservation steps in response--
numbers in parentheses are 2009 responses)
Less Time Watering
Outdoors,19%
(24%)
Fewer Days perWeek
Watering Outdoors,7%
Do NotAllow Water to (10%~)_
Run,10%(8%)
Wash Only Full Loads of
Dishes and Clothes,11%
(10%)
ShorterShowe~!14%
(21'lb)
Irrigate Early in Morning
or lateat Night,6%(2%)
Let LandscapelLawn Die-
-EJiminate,5%(7%)
Fix IndoorLeaks,5"1.(2%)
FixOukioorLeaks,5%(1%)
Purchase High-
Efficiency Clothes
WasherlLow-f1ow
Fixtures,4%(4%)
Use Broom Instead eX
Hose,4%(0%)
Collect and Reuse,3%(2%)
Replaced Turf with Low
Water Plants,2'1.(2%)
Upgrade Irrigation
System,2'I.(2%)
Other,3%(2%)
Chart 13
Adjustments to Sprinkler Settings
.Have Weather-Based Controller o Automatic Controller--Adjusted 7 or More TimeslYear
.Automatic Controller--Adjusted 4-6 TimeS/Year •Automatic Controller--Adjusted 1-3 TimeslYear
.Automatic Controller--Never Adjusted •Automatic Controller--Unsure about Number of Adjustments
o No Automatic Controller
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
10%
20%
23%
16%
25%
23%
100%
Conservation Garden/Recycling
Less visitation to Cuyamaca College Water
Conservation Garden (especially among lower and
higher incomes)
Changes in response to visits are less replacement
with water tolerant plants and more lawns being
eliminated (esp. in Chula Vista and middle income
households)
•Trend in support for using recycled water
turned downward
Chart 14
Have Seen/Heard ofMsited
Cu amaca Colle e Water Conservation Garden
•Heard of and Visited
Conservation Garden
o Heard of but Not Visited
•Never Heard of or Seen
100%
10%
2011 2009 2008 2006 2005
Chart 16
Most Significant Change Made Resulting from Visiting
Water Conservation Garden
(among 9 percent who hawvisited !IHI made changes)
I 02009 .2011 I
other
Collect and Reuse
Replaced lawn with low-
Water Plants
Upgraded Irrigation System
IL...,--------''''
Changed Plants to 39%54%
WalerwiselDrought Tolerant IL,------,------r-----,------,-----,--'
let landscapellawn Die-
Eliminate
Adjusted SprinkerslReduced
OutdoorWater Use
10%
Chart 30
Favor/Oppose Recycled Water for Watering
along Freeways,Open Space,Parks,Golf Courses
(mean =1.24 on 1-4 scale where 1 =Strongly Favor)
.Strongly Favor •Somewhat Favor •Somewhat Oppose Strongly Oppose •Unsure
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
82%18%
65%28%2%3%2%
85%11%1°~ol%
50%70%80%100%
Chart 31
Favor/Oppose Recycled Water for Watering Residential Front Yards
(1.39=mean on 1-4 scale where 1 =Strongly Favor)
•Strongly Favor •Somewhat Favor •Somewhat Oppose •Strongly Oppose .Unsure
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
67%19%5%3%6%
78%12%3%5%2%
76%20%2%2%
46%35%7%5%7%
63%19%4%3%11%
10%70%100%
2011
2008
2006
2005
Chart 32
Favor/Oppose Recycled Water to Replenish Recreational Lakes
(1.78=mean on 1-4 scale where 1 =Strongly Favor)
•Strongly Favor •Somewhat Favor •Somewhat Oppose •Strongly Oppose •Unsure
47%21%9%10% 13%
62%18%14%6%
30%39%10%15%6%
34%18%19%19%10%
10%70'1.100%
2011
2008
2006
Chart 33
Favor/Oppose Recycled Water to Supplement Drinking Water Supply
(2.97 =mean on 1-4 scale where 1 =Strongly Fawr)
•Strongly Favor •Somewhat Favor •Somewhat Oppose •Strongly Oppose •Unsure
10%70%100%
Website/Communications/Online
Bill Payment
•Increase in reading CCR
•Decrease in reading newsletter and bill inserts
from 2009 but higher than 2008 and before
•Visitors to the Otay Water District website
have increased steadily
•Rating of website has rebounded from 2009
•Significant increase in receptivity to receiving
bills by e-mail
•Record keeping, lack of control and security issues are
main reasons for not wanting to pay bills online
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
Chart 24
Read Consumer Confidence Report
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
100%
70%
10%
2005 2006
Chart 23
Read Newsletter
2008 2009
•Every Time
•Most Times
•Sometimes
•Never
2011
Chart 25
Visits to otay Water District Website
•Have Visited Website •Have Internet Access But Have Not Visited Website •Do Not Have Access to the Internet
2.011
2.009
2.008
2.006
2.005
39%49%12%
32%57%11%
27%57%16%
21%53%26%
19%71%10%
10%70%100%
2011
2009
2008
2006
2005
Chart 26
Rating of Website
(2.1 =mean rating on 1-5 scale,where 1 =Excellent)
(by 39 percentwho haw vistited website)
10%100%
2011
Chart 20
Receive Monthly Bill by E-mail?
10%20%30%40%50%60%70%
No,74%
80%
Chart 21
Likelihood of Paperless Bill Paying Within Next 1-2 Years
Very Likely, 38%
Somewhat Likely, 20%
Somewhat Unlikely, 10%
Very Unlikely, 32%
Chart 22
Objection to Paperless Bill Paying
(asked of42%who indicated that they were unlikely to utilize a paperless system)
No ReasonlDo Not
Know,21%
Other,3%,.~
Will Forget to Check
Computer for Bill,6%
Computer Failures,6%
Lack ofSecurilylDo Not
Keep personal Records
on Computer,11%
Want Paper Record,21%
NotUse Computers
That Often,18%
Comfortable Paying by
Check,14%
Social Media
46% use some social media website
Facebook and You Tube most popular
61% think that it is very or somewhat
important that the District have social
media presence
45%
35%
25%
Chart 27
Use of Social Media/Networks
4%
Facebook You Tube linkedln Twitter My Space AtLeast One of
These Websiles
ConslructionlRepair
Notification
Qu~nsCommemsabom
Service Satisfaction
Emergency Information
Water Indusby News
Information abom 0Iay Water
Disbicl:
Chart 28
Potential Uses for Social Media Websites
.'
Yes,38%No,47%Unsure,15%
,
Yes,40%No,43%Unsure,17%
10%70%100%
Chart 29
Importance of Otay Water District Having
Social Media Presence
(2.53 =mean on 1-5 scale where 1 =Very Important)
Very Unimportant,16%
Somewhat Unimportant,
10%
Neither Important nor
Unimportant,13%
Very Important,28'1.
Somewhat Important,
33%
AGENDA ITEM 8b
5TAFF REPORT
W.O./G.F.NO:
MEETING DATE:
APPROVED BY:
(Chief)
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board
SUBMITTED BY:Geoffrey Stevens,Chief
Information Technology and
Strategic p~~.n,'ngGermaJ.tA}Ja~~..~Assistant General
F~/J
APPROVED BY:
(Ass!.GM):
March 28,2011
DIV.NO.
Manager,Administration and
SUBJECT:FY 2011 Strategic Plan and Performance Measures Report
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
No recommendation.This is an informational item only.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
See Attachment A.
PURPOSE:
To provide a fiscal mid-year report on the District's Strategic
Performance Plan.
ANALYSIS:
The District has completed the first half of the Strategic Plan
for FY 2011.Overall,results for performance measures continue
to be positive with the District exceeding its target (at least
75%on target).Results for objectives were just under target
(at least 90%complete or on track),but are expected to recover
by next quarter.Detailed information on each objective and
measure is also available electronically on the Board Extranet.
Looking at these results in more detail:
Strategic Plan Objectives -84%
Strategic plan objectives are designed to ensure we are making
the appropriate high-level changes necessary to move the agency
in the planned direction to meet new challenges and
opportunities.Objective results were just under target with 27
of 32 (84%)complete,ahead or on schedule.2 items are on hold
and are thus excluded from the calculation.Five items are
behind schedule.Of these five items,three have been corrected
as of March 1st •
FY 11 Objectives
Objectives:All Scorecard Areas
~Summary II....Det_a_il -I
30 ./
25 23
L
20
15
1-
10
-4 5
5 "'~2,.Y •0 0
0 ...,.'/t_F ./.j
Compl On Schd Behind Hold No Rpts Not Slrt
34 Total
27/32 Objectives on or ahead of schedule (84%).
Target is 90%.
Performance Measures -84%(6 Points Below Goal)
Performance measures are designed to track the day-to-day
performance of the District.Sometimes referred to as a "dash
board",these items attempt to measure the effectiveness and
efficiency of daily operations.The overall goal is that at
least 75%of these measures be rated "on target".District
results in this area are positive with 37 of 44 (84%)items
achieving the desired level or better.
FY 11 Performance Measures
Measures:All Scorecard Areas
I
I summary I......::.D..::,et.::a:.;.;il ----\
50 /
40 37
"--30
20 /
710"...0 y •0 0 0
0 F //
Campi On Schd Behind Hold No Rpts Not Slrt
44 Total
37/44 Measures on or ahead of schedule (84%).
Target is 75%.
Balanced Scorecard -External View
The Balanced Scorecard methodology is designed to ensure that a
company is performing consistently on a wide range of measures
necessary to ensure both short-term and long-term improvements.
Many of the areas do not meet the target due to a lower ratio of
open items.For example 4 out of 5 Learning &Growth objectives
are completed or on schedule,but 4/5 is still only 80%,just
missing the 90%target.For a more detailed explanation,quarter
reports for these measures are available on the Board Extranet.
Balanced Scorecard Perspective
FY 2011 •Qtr 2 •All Departments
[
Customer
•Objectives •Measures
Financial
Objectives Measures l
Lea Ing and Growth
•Objectives II Measures
Green =meets or exceedsl Red =does not meet
Departmental Perspective -Internal View of Performance
The departmental perspective breaks down performance objectives
and measures by the responsible internal departments.The
results here are similar to the balanced scorecard scenario
where a lower ratio in open items resulted in a lower on target
percentage.
FY 2011 •Qtr 2 •All Scorec.rd Are••
Departments
1-Administrative Services
2-Engineering
3-Finance
4-Infonnation Technology
s-Operations
•Objectives •Measures
II Objectives ..Measures ~•Objectives Measures
•Objectives •Measures
•Objectives Measures
Green =meets or exceeds/Red =does not meet
Significant Achievements
Some significant mid-year achievements include 46 objectives
complete to-date and 37 of 44 measures with results on target.
FISCAL IMPACT:~
Informational item only,no fiscal impact.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
Strategic Plan and Performance Measure reporting is a critical
element in providing performance reporting to the Board and
staff.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None
Gener
SUBJECT/PROJECT:
ATTACHMENT A
FY 2011 Strategic Plan and Performance Measures Report
COMMITTEE ACTION:
The Finance,Administration and Communications Committee discussed this item
at a meeting held on March 16,2011 and the following comments were made:
•Staff presented an update on the performance results for the first six
months of the Strategic Plan.
•It was indicated that 84%(27 of 32 objectives)of the FY 2011
objectives are ahead or on schedule which is below the target of 90%.
However,this result is misleading as the methodology used by the
District removes objectives from the sampling when it is completed in a
previous fiscal year because it is not a current year project.If the
2009-2011 Strategic Plan is reviewed as a whole,there are an
additional 35 objectives that have been completed and,thus overall,
the District is above target at 94%.
•There were five projects that caused the District to fall below its
target and,currently,three of the five are back on track.He noted
that if performance was measured today,the District would be above the
90%target.He stated that some issues were procedural (getting
contracts signed,etc.)which technically did not meet the measurement
criteria for identifying the objectives on time,so they were
determined behind schedule.It was noted that this did not represent a
serious impact to the District's ability to execute the plan and that
it was more of a timing issue.
•The committee discussed that the measurements illustrates that the
system is working as it caused a concern and triggered staff to look at
the objectives that were behind,which then allowed the District to
make a correction.
•Staff reported that the District was above the target of 75%with
regard to performance measures with 85%of the performance measures
complete,ahead of schedule or on target.
•It was explained that another issue with the objectives being removed
from the measurement when they are complete is if a department only has
seven (7)objectives or performance measures left in the last FY of the
plan,then if only one (1)item falls behind,the department will be
below the 90%target criteria.It is felt that,at this point of the
Strategic Plan,the departmental level becomes less meaningful.
Keeping this in mind,he stated that four (4)of eight (8)of the
measures for the departmental view are below target and four (4)of
eight (8)are above.From the balance scorecard perspective,five (5)
of eight (8)are below and three (3)of eight (8)are above.
•Staff noted that additional reporting fields have been added into the
Strategic Plan itself,so more information is being collected.Staff
is reviewing from the beginning period of the Strategic Plan and is
determining if the District has reached the goal that it had set at
this particular point in time.
•Staff has been working on developing the FY 2012-2014 Strategic Plan
and it is expected to be presented to committee next month.
•It was discussed that one of the large impacts in developing the FY
2012-2014 Strategic Plan is the slowed economy.The District will be
engaging an economist who will have a good understanding of not only
the State-wide economy,but the local economy,to help develop the
Strategic Plan and budget.The budget will be backed by an economist's
report and the Strategic Plan for FY 2012-2014.
•It was noted that the Strategic Plan information is available on the
District's intranet and can be reviewed in more detail.
Following the discussion,the committee supported presentation to the board
as an informational item.
I:.ation
EHecution
Perflll'mal¥e
MeasuresCamlPUNCation
OWD Business Planning Process
Yisim }
Mission strat Ie:PI..
strategies
Resources }Accountability Imp
Tods PI
Training
Cot'rectlve
Action
,
_1-11
-.
Objectives:All Sc recar :Areas
I Summary _D_e_ta_il o_t_o_n_Ta_r_e_t ---1
30
25 ./
20
15 ./
10 /
Compl On Schd Behind Hold No Rpts Not strt
34 Total
FY2010 Objectives
27 of 32 objectives complete,ahead or on target (840/0)
Target is 900/0
Measures:All Scorecard Areas
On Tar atSummaryDetailL....-~---------_----."""""""---------l
50
40
30
20
10
o
/
-3f/
/
/
/'
1--7.//.,0 4 0 0 0
1/L I ~//
Compl On Schd Behind Hold No Rpts Not strt
44 Total
FY2010 Performance Meas,ures
37 of 44 performance measures complete,ahead or on target (8,40/0)
Target is 750/0
Balanced Scar card
FY 2011 •Qtr 2 •All Departments
Customer learning and Growth Business Processes
Me,asuresI_ObjectivesMeasuresObjectives
Financial
MeasuresMeasures•Objectives
Balanced Scorec rd
Green =meets or exceedsl Red =does not meet
artment Vie
FY 201.1 •Qtr 2 •All Scorecard Areas
2-Engineering Objectives Measures
3-Finance Objectives Mea·sures -
4-Information Technology Objectives Measures
•Objectives •Measures
---------~-
Department Vi w
Green -meets or exceedsl Red =does not meet
-Additional Fields for Strat Plan Application
•FY 2012-2014 Strategic Plan
•FY 2009-2011 Strat Plan Completion Report
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM 9a
TYPE MEETING:Regular Board Meeting
SUBMITTED BY:Mark Watton,
General Manager
MEETING DATE:
W.O.lG.F.NO:
April 6,2011
DIV.NO.
SUBJECT:Board of Directors 2011 Calendar of Meetings
GENERAL MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION:
At the request of the Board,the attached Board of Director's meeting
calendar for 2011 is being presented for discussion.
PURPOSE:
This staff report is being presented to provide the Board the
opportunity to review the 2011 Board of Director's meeting calendars
and amend the schedule as needed.
COMMITTEE ACTION:
N/A
ANALYSIS:
The Board requested that this item be presented at each meeting so
they may have an opportunity to review the Board meeting calendar
schedule and amend it as needed.
STRATEGIC GOAL:
N/A
FISCAL IMPACT:
None.
LEGAL IMPACT:
None.
Attachments:Calendar of Meetings for 2011
G:IUserD.t.IDistSecIWINWORDlSTAFRFTSIBo.rd Meeting C.lend.r4-6-11.doc
Regular Board Meetings:
January 5,2011
February 2,2011
March 2,2011
April 6,2011
May 4,2011
June 1,2011
July 6,2011
August 3,2011
September 7,2011
October 5,2011
November 2,2011
December 7,2011
Board Workshops:
Board of Directors,Workshops
and Committee Meetings
2011
Special Board or Committee Meetings (3 rd
Wednesday ofEach Month or as Noted)
January 19,2011
February 16,2011
March 16,2011
April 20,2011
May 18,2011
June 15,2011
July 20,2011
August 17,2011
September 21,2011
October 19,2011
November 16,2011
December 21,2011
Budget Workshop:Monday,May 16,2011
Special Board Meeting/Board Retreat Workshop:TBD
G:\UserData\DistSec\WINWORD\STAFRPTS\Board Meeting Calendar Attach A for 20 II 4-6-11.doc
Page 1 of 1
AGENDA ITEM 10
STAFF REPORT
TYPE
MEETING:Regular Board
MEETING
DATE:April 6,2011
SUBMITTED
BY:
Mark Watton
General Manager
W.O./G.F.
NO:
N/A DIV.
NO.
N/A
SUBJECT:General Manager's Report
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES,INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND FINANCE:
ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES:
Water Conservation and School Education:
•School Garden Tours -In March,staff actively promoted its
programs to schools located within its service area.To
date,32 tours have been reserved and 23 were scheduled to be
completed before the end of March.
•Water Conservation Outreach Richard Namba,Water
Conservation Specialist,gave a presentation entitled "The
Impact of Incentive Based Landscape Sustainability Programs N
at Cuyamaca College's 3rd Annual Sustainable Urban Landscapes
Conference on March 10,2011.
•Project WET Class Otay Staff partnered with Sweetwater
Authority and the Water Education Foundation to hold a
Project WET (Water Education for Teachers)Educator Workshop
at the Chula Vista Nature Center on March 16th .The class was
full and 12 of the 20 teachers in attendance were from Otay
schools.The workshop was funded primarily by a cooperative
communications grant received from the Water Authority.
•School Photo Contest The District received a number of
entries for the 6th Annual Regional "Water ColorsN photo
contest.Winners will be invited to receive their award at
the May Board meeting.
•Water Waste Reporting -In March (through the 28 th ),there
were 10 reports of water waste,either phoned in or reported
through the District's website.
listing the activity is attached.
Human Resources:
The water waste report
•Revised Summary Plan Descriptions and the Addition of Mexico
Network for Dental Plan In early March,Human Resources
sent updated Summary Plan Documents for Medical,Dental and
Life Insurance.All three plan documents included updates to
reflect compliance to Healthcare Reform.The Dental Summary
Plan Document also included new information on the expansion
of our Dental Network to include Mexico.The Mexico Network
will offer the same benefits as the non-Mexico network,
however,if an employee goes to a non-contracted provider in
Mexico,they must pay the dentist out of pocket first and
then submit an itemized bill along with a dental claim form.
Human Resources also provided a "Summary of Eligibility for
Medical and Dental Coverage"to all participants,which
provides an overview of the eligibility requirements for
employees and eligible retirees.
•SDCWA Intern Program The District participates in the
Internship program coordinated through San Diego County Water
Authority.This month,two interns started at the District,
one in System Operations and one at the Treatment Plant.
•New Hires -There were no new hires in the month of March.
Safety &Security:
•CHP Inspection -On March 16th,CHP conducted an inspection of
Otay vehicles,trailers,drivers'logs,random drug testing
results,and DMV Pull Notices.Our facility was assigned a
"Satisfactory"safety rating,which will carry us over until
the next inspection sometime in 2013.
•EOC Phones Phones were tested and will continue to be
tested quarterly to ensure they are operating properly during
an emergency.These phones are used to communicate with
local/state/federal safety officials and Otay staff members.
Purchasing and Facilities:
•Purchase Orders -There were 141 purchase orders processed
in March 2011 for a total of $971,125.38.
INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND STRATEGIC PLANNING:
•Wi-Fi -Staff installed Wi-Fi internet access throughout the
Administration building as an added security measure.
2
Vendors who come to Otay for presentations,may now connect
to the internet via this Wi-Fi network without gaining access
to,and potentially,placing at risk our Otay network.
•Meter Number Collection GIS initialized the contract of
Meter Number Collection for GIS and the billing system.This
project will help close the gap of meter box location and the
service location of the customer's account,and improve
customer service and the District's finances.
•Training Tracking System -The new "Training Tracking System"
application was deployed into production on February 14,
2011.The purpose of the system is to automate and
consolidate records of required training provided to
employees within the District.The "Training Tracking
System"is a data-entry and reporting system designed to
allow Otay Water District to track required training provided
and identify training needs.The system also allows the
ability to easily generate and provide training information
to outside agencies in the event of an audit.
FINANCE:
•Alternative Payment Types The total alternative payments
made in February was 23,355.Alternative payment types
include ACH,web payments,online banking,credit card by
phone,and payment through retailers such as Wal-Mart.These
methods of payments are much less expensive to the District
than the standard payment via check.Approximately 54%of
customer payments are now made using these alternative
methods.As of March 24 th ,8,436 customers have chosen to
stop receiving paper bills,another significant cost savings
to the District.
•FEMA Initial Claims Request FEMA has approved the
District's Request for Public Assistance,which is the
primary requirement to qualify for the submission of
subsequent specific claims.In the interim,FEMA personnel
have visited 4 of the 5 damage claim sites and are working
with District personnel to complete the necessary forms for
approval of the required repair work.
•Economist In an effort to more accurately proj ect the
future meter sales and other financial factors,the District
has engaged the services of Alan Nevin,an economist,who has
a significant understanding of the market affecting Otay.
Mr.Nevin is the Director of Economic Research with the firm
Marketpointe Realty Advisors.
3
•Letter of Credit The District's variable rate debt is
supported by a Letter of Credit (LOC)from Landesbank.This
debt is a short-term,low interest rate debt,which is
remarketed on a weekly basis.The LOC has an opt-out clause
for the bank to exit the LOC on June loth of this year.
Landesbank has expressed their intention to renew.In the
event the bank was to not follow through with its stated
intention,the District would either payoff the debt or seek
a temporary extension while another LOC Bank is obtained.
Two banks have expressed an interest in providing the
District with a replacement LOC and are ready to move forward
in the unlikely event that Landesbank declines to renew.
•Budget The budget lS on schedule and is planned to be
presented to the Board at the budget workshop meeting on May
16th .When the budget with the proposed rate changes are
approved,customers will be mailed notices of these changes
in November.The rate changes will be effective with January
2012 water use and sewer services that is billed in February
2012.
•The financial reporting for February 28,2011 is as follows:
For the eight months ending February 28,2011,there are
total revenues of $46,030,525 and total expenses of
$49,331,291.The expenses exceeded revenues by $3,300,766.
This budget shortfall is almost completely due to lower water
sales than budgeted.The economy,conservation,higher water
prices,low temperatures,and high amounts of rainfall
combine to significantly decrease water sales.Temperatures
are 2.44 degrees cooler than last year and the rainfall is
145%greater.
•The financial reporting for investments for February 28,2011
is as follows:
The market value shown in the Portfolio Summary and
Investment Portfolio Details as of February 28,2011
$102,846,641.91 with an average yield to maturity of
The total earnings year-to-date are $716,660.55.
ENGINEERING AND WATER OPERATIONS:
Engineering:
in the
total
.899%.
•Rancho del Rey Groundwater Well Development:Tetra Tech,
Inc.(Tetra Tech)was selected as the consultant to design
the Phase 2 improvements.A recommendation for award to
Tetra Tech was accepted by the EO&WR Committee on March 23
4
and passed on for full Board approval as a consent item.
Staff is in the process of securing a sewer discharge permit
from the City of Chula Vista,which will require approval of
a sewer study and execution of an Agreement between the
District,the City and perhaps the County.The design is
anticipated to be complete by the end of calendar year 2011,
with construction complete by the end of calendar year 2012.
(P2434)
•North District -South District Interconnections System:
This project consists of installing approximately seven miles
of large diameter pipe from Proctor Valley Rd.in Chula Vista
to Paradise Valley Rd.in Spring Valley.The project is
currently in the early design phase with Lee &Ro,Inc.
working on the preliminary design report.(P2511)
•Del Rio Rd.&Gillespie Dr.Emergency Interconnections:This
project consists of installing two new emergency
interconnections with Helix Water District.Staff completed
review of all necessary submittals and RFIs.L.H.Woods &
Sons,Inc.(contractor)expected to mobilize the week of
March 28 th .This project is on schedule to be completed in
August 2011.(P2488,P2499)
•657-1 &2 Reservoirs Coating:Blastco continues to remove the
interior and exterior coating of the 657-1 Reservoir.A new
center support structure and a second access manway have been
installed on the 657-1 Reservoir.This project consists of
recoating the interior and exterior of each reservoir as well
as structural upgrades.This project is on budget and
scheduled to be completed in June 2011.(P2505,P2506)
•SR905:Construction of District utility relocations is now
complete.Staff is finalizing all reimbursements for the
remaining Joint Use Agreements (JUAs)with Caltrans.The
District received a check from Caltrans on 3/21/11 in the
amount of $384,000,closing out two JUAs.Staff anticipates
receiving another $200,000 from Caltrans for the last two
remaining agreements in approximately 60 days.
•For the month of February 2011,the District sold 15 meters
(15 EDUs)generating $245,321 in revenue.Projection for
this period was 12 meters (26 EDUs)with budgeted revenue of
$217,086.Projected revenue from June 1,2010 through June
30,2011 is $2,605,032;against a budget of $1,736,688 as of
February 28,2011.Revenue collected to date is $2,162,355,
which is 25%above projection.
5
•For the month of February,staff reviewed 19 potential
easement encroachments and will be gathering all the
necessary information prior to informing customer of the
removal of the encroachment.The above is a part of an on-
going program of easement monitoring.
•Approximately 1,213 linear feet of both CIP and developer
project pipeline was installed in February 2011.The
Inspection Division performed quality control for these
pipelines.
•The following table summarizes Engineering's project purchases
and Change Orders issued during the period of February 17,2011
through March 25,2011 that were within staff signatory
authority:
Date Contractor/
Action Amount Consultant Project
PL-20-Inch,657 Zone,
2-23-11 P.O.$6,200.00 San-Lo Aerial Summit Cross-Tie and
Surveys 36-Inch Main
Connections (P2318)
Del Rio &Gillespie Dr
3-8-11 C.O.#1 $4,981.00 L.H.Woods &Emergency
Sons,Inc.Interconnections
(P2488 &P2489)
3-16-11 P.O.$4,000.00 PBS&J Rancho del Rey Sewer
(P2434)
3-18-11 Check $1,041.60 CDPH 944-1R Pump Station
Request (R20 94)
Avocado Boulevard
3-23-11 Check $5,500.00 Juan Navarro Sanitary Sewer
Request Replacement Permanent
Easement (S2019)
Water Operations:
•Total number of potable water meters is 48,238.
•The February purchases were 1,700.0 acre feet,which is 26.7
acre feet more than budgeted for February.Year to date
potable water purchases are 19,905 acre feet,which 1S
1,673.3 acre feet or 9.5%below budget.
6
Potable Water Purchases
30,000
25,000
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
~Purchases
__Budget
___Allocation
Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Jan-11 Feb-11
•Recycled water consumption for the month of February is as
follows:
Total consumption was 202.5 acre-feet or 65,948,916 gallons
and the average daily consumption was 2,355,318 gallons per
day.
Total number of recycled water meters is 685.
Total recycled water consumption to date for FY 2011 1S
2,795.4 acre-feet.
•Wastewater flows for the month of February were as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
Total basin flow,gallons per day:2,026,757.
Spring Valley Sanitation District Flow to Metro,gallons
per day:670,646.
Total Otay flow,gallons per day:1,353,311.
Flow Processed at the Ralph W.Chapman Water Recycling
Facility,gallons per day:912,489.
Flow to Metro from Otay Water District,gallons per day:
443,622.
For the month of February there were no new wastewater
connections;total EDUs is 6,080.
7
8
Water Waste Report
4 4 1 2 17
23 9 6 1 1 47
35 5 8 10 1 7 79
24 9 17 4 4 6 70
15 7 8 1 1 9 52
17 5 7 2 1 3 41
6 2 6 1 1 20
6 7 11 1 26
15 1 4 1 22
2 1 4 1 9
2 3 6
1 5 2 10
4 1 5 11
3 4 3 1 1 13
2 1 2 1 1 9
4 2 6
3 6 4 13
2 1 5 2 3 1 14
1 1 1 1 4
9 2 11
2 3 5
2 1 3
2 1 1 2 6
3 4 3 10
76 2 184 61 112 25 9 35 504
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
COMPARATIVE BUDGET SUMMARY
FOR EIGHT MONTHS ENDED FEBRUARY 28,2011
Exhibit A
Annual YTD YTD YTD
Budget Actual Budget Variance Var%
REVENUES:
Water Sales $36,560,100 $20,854,111 $24,896,500 $(4,042,389) (16.2%)
Energy Charges 1,854,600 1,142,675 1,273,200 (130,525)(10.3%)
System Charges 9,532,200 6,269,524 6,285,200 (15,676)(0.2%)
Penalties 747,600 469,934 513,700 (43,766)(8.5%)
MWD &CWA Fixed Charges 7,639,400 4,657,965 4,798,400 (140,435)(2.9%)
Total Water Sales 56,333,900 33,394,208 37,767,000 (4,372,792)(11.6%)
Reclamation Sales 7,620,600 4,557,602 5,190,900 (633,298)(12.2%)
Sewer Charges 2,270,500 1,622,091 1,590,800 31,291 2.0%
Meter Fees 50,300 42,205 33,700 8,505 25.2%
Capacity Fee Revenues 1,095,300 641,906 680,100 (38,194)(5.6%)
Betterment Fees for Maintenance 657,400 379,935 408,300 (28,365)(6.9%)
Non-Operating Revenues 1,948,300 1,302,992 1,298,833 4,158 0.3%
Tax Revenues 3,843,900 2,066,197 2,076,200 (10,003)(0.5%)
Interest 296,200 105,089 177,500 (72,411)(40.8%)
General Fund Draw Down 1,657,500 1,105,000 1,105,000 0.0%
Transfer from OPEB 1,220,000 813,300 813,300 0.0%
Total Revenues $76,993,900 $46,030,525 $51,141,633 $(5,111,108)(10.0%)
EXPENSES:
Potable Water Purchases $26,238,700 $16,489,480 $18,344,800 $1,855,320 10.1%
Recycled Water Purchases 1,179,900 981,100 763,700 (217,400)(28.5%)
CWA-1nfrastructure Access Charge 1,550,700 978,214 978,400 186 0.0%
CWA-Customer Service Charge 1,315,200 830,368 830,400 32 0.0%
CWA-Emergency Storage Charge 2,875,200 1,821,582 1,818,800 (2,782)(0.2%)
MWD-Capacity Res Charge 665,100 441,878 443,200 1,322 0.3%
MWD-Readiness to Serve Charge 1,232,400 820,852 821,600 748 0.1%
Subtotal Water Purchases 35,057,200 22,363,474 24,000,900 1,637,426 6.8%
Power Charges 2,520,700 1,507,755 1,677,700 169,945 10.1%
Payroll &Related Costs 16,749,400 11,229,311 11,040,289 (189,022)(1.7%)
Material &Maintenance 3,769,500 2,468,613 2,279,000 (189,613)(8.3%)
Administrative Expenses 5,130,400 2,610,861 3,103,822 492,962 15.9%
Legal Fees 451,200 274,277 300,800 26,523 8.8%
Expansion Reserve 2,775,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 0.0%
Betterment Reserve 1,435,000 956,700 956,700 0.0%
Replacement Reserve 6,965,000 4,643,300 4,643,300 0.0%
Transfer to Sewer General Fund 390,500 260,300 260,300 0.0%
Transfer to General Fund Reserve 1,750,000 1,166,700 1,166,700 0.0%
Total Expenses $76,993,900 $49,331,291 $51,279,511 $1,948,220 3.8%
EXCESS REVENUES(EXPENSE)$$(3,300,766)$(137,878)$(3,162,888)
F/MORPT/FS2011-0211 3/28/2011 2:04 PM
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO REVIEW
FEBRUARY 28,2011
INVESTMENT OVERVIEW &MARKET STATUS:
The federal funds rate has remained constant now for over 26-months.On December 16,2008,at the Federal Reserve Board's regular
scheduled meeting,the federal funds rate was lowered from 1.00%to "a target range ofbetween Zero and 0.25%"in response to the
nation's ongoing financial crisis,as well as banking industry pressure to ease credit and stimulate the economy.This marked the ninth
reduction in a row since September 18,2007,when the rate was 5.25%.There have been no further changes made to the federal funds
rate at the Federal Reserve Board's subsequent regular scheduled meetings,the most recent of which was held on March 15,2011.
They went on to say:"The Committee continues to anticipate that economic conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels
ofthe federal funds rate for an extended period."
Despite the large drop in available interest rates,the District's overall effective rate of return at February 28th was 0.92%,which was
an increase of 6 basis points (0.06%)from the prior month.At the same time the LAIF return on deposits has dropped slightly over
the last several months,reaching an average effective yield of 0.51 %for the month of February 2011.Based on our success at
maintaining a competitive rate ofreturn on our portfolio during this extended period of interest rate declines,no changes in investment
strategy are being considered at this time.
In accordance with the District's Investment Policy,all District funds continue to be managed based on the objectives,in priority
order,of safety,liquidity,and return on investment.
PORTFOLIO COMPLIANCE:February 28,2011
8.01:
8.02:
8.02:
8.03:
8.04:
8.05:
8.06:
8.07:
8.08:
12.0:
Investment
Treasury Securities
Local Agency Investment Fund (Operations)
Local Agency Investment Fund (Bonds)
Federal Agency Issues
Certificates of Deposit
Short-Term Commercial Notes
Medium-Term Commercial Debt
Money Market Mutual Funds
San Diego County Pool
Maximum Single Financial Institution
State Limit
100%
$40 Million
100%
100%
30%
25%
30%
20%
100%
100%
Otay Limit
100%
$40 Million
100%
100%
15%
15%
15%
15%
100%
50%
Otay Actual
o
$11.90 Million
3.93%
66.45%
0.08%
o
o
o
16.51 %
1.46%
Target:Meet or Exceed 100%of LAIF
Performance Measure F-12
Return on Investment
Jan FYII Feb FYll
!l 1.80
I::1.60Gl
oS 1.40<IIGl 1.20>.E 1.00I::0 0.80I::..0.60:JG)0.40II:
0.20
0.00
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4thQtr
FYlO FYIO FYIO FYIO
_LAIF 0.90 0.61 0.56 0.56
_Otay 1.62 1.52 1.35 1.08
CDifferenee 0.72 0.91 0.79 0.52
July
FY11
0.53
1.14
0.61
Aug SepFYII 1st Qfr OetFYII Nov DeeFYll 2nd Qtr
FYII FYIl FYII FYIl
0.51 0.50 0.51 0.48 0.45 0.46 0.47
1.12 1.13 1.13 0.91 0.99 0.85 0.92
0.61 0.63 0.62 0.43 0.54 0.39 0.45
0.54
0.86
0.32
0.51
0.92
0.41
Month
I aLAIF .Otay DDillerenee I
Otay Water District
Investment Portfolio:02/28/11
$1,580,430
1.54%
'-------------------01
$32,933,096
32.0 %
D Banks (Passbook/Checking/CD)Pools (LAIF &County)D Agencies &Corporate Notes
GTAY
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
February 28,2011
Investments
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
Certificates of Deposit -Bank
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
San Diego CountyPool
Par Market Book %of Days to YTM YTM
Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv.365Equiv.
68,372,000.00 68,338,557.43 68,370,944.21 67.44 839 690 1.013 1.027
79,108.00 79,108.00 79,108.00 0.08 730 327 1.380 1.399
15,946,352.12 15,969,654.89 15,946,352.12 15.73 1 1 0.505 0.512
16,986,744.37 16,958,000.00 16,986,744.37 16.76 1 1 0.812 0.823
101,384,204.49 101,345,320.32 101,383,148.70 100.00%567 466 0.899 0.912
Investments
Cash
(not included in vield calculations)
Total Cash and Investments
1,501,321.59
102,885,526.08
1,501,321.59
102,846,641.91
1,501,321.59
102,884,470.29 567 466
0.132
0.899
0.134
0.912
Total Earnings February 28 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date
Current Year 73,954.17 716,660.55
Average Daily Balance 104,922,626.05 106,665,300.93
Effective Rate of Return 0.92%1.44%
Ihereby certify that the investments contained in this report are made in accordance with the District Investment Policy Number 27 adopted by the Board of Directors on September 6,2006.The mar1<et
value information provided by Interactive Data Corporation.The investments provide sufficient liquidity to meet the cash flow requirements ofthe District for the next six months ofexpenditures.
~:Z--2.-(-r l
Jo~;;eactle:CliiIlcer
Reporting period 02/01/2011-02/28/2011
Run Date:03/17/2011 -15:21
Portfolio OTAY
AP
PM (PRF PM1)7.3.0
ReportVer.7.3.2
OTAY
Portfolio Management Page 1
Portfolio Details -Investments
February 28,2011
Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity
CUSIP Investment#Issuer Balance Date Par Value MarketValue BookValue Rate S&P 360 Maturity Date
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
31331JZV8 2164 Federal Farm Credit Bank 09/03/2010 2,000,000.00 1,998,560.00 2,000,000.00 0.950 AM 0.937 794 05/03/2013
31331JM75 2170 Federal Farm Credit Bank 10/12/2010 2,000,000.00 1,994,320.00 2,000,000.00 0.900 0.888 773 04/1212013
3133XXRW9 2128 Federal Home Loan Bank 03/29/2010 2,000,000.00 2,001,500.00 2,000,000.00 1,250 AM 1.233 486 06/29/2012
3133XYNSO 2145 Federal Home Loan Bank 06/10/2010 2,000,000.00 2,005,220.00 2,000,000.00 1.280 AM 1.262 650 12/10/2012
3133XYSH9 2147 Federal Home Loan Bank 06/21/2010 2,000,000.00 2,005,300.00 2,000,000.00 1,125 AM 1.110 570 09/21/2012
313370P77 2162 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/25/2010 2,000,000.00 2,000,120.00 2,000,000.00 0.850 AM 0.838 727 02125/2013
313370UP1 2165 Federal Home Loan Bank 09/13/2010 2,000,000.00 2,000,120.00 2,000,000.00 0.875 AM 0.863 743 03/13/2013
313371LKO 2173 Federal Home Loan Bank 11/16/2010 2,000,000.00 1,991,200.00 2,000,000.00 0.700 AM 0.690 626 11/16/2012
313371MR4 2174 Federal Home Loan Bank 11/22/2010 2,000,000.00 1,981,240.00 2,000,000.00 0.700 AM 0.690 813 05/22/2013
313371RA6 2175 Federal Home Loan Bank 12/07/2010 2,000,000.00 1,991,700.00 2,000,000.00 0.700 AM 0.690 647 12/07/2012
313371U20 2176 Federal Home Loan Bank 12/03/2010 2,000,000.00 1,988,580.00 2,000,000.00 1.000 AM 0.986 825 06/03/2013
313372B45 2181 Federal Home Loan Bank 01/05/2011 2,000,000.00 1,999,340,00 2,000,000.00 1.375 AM 1.356 857 07/05/2013
313372GVO 2184 Federal Home Loan Bank 02/08/2011 2,000,000.00 1,996,820,00 2,000,000.00 1.050 AM 1.036 710 02/08/2013
3137EACK3 2146 Federal Home Loan Mortgage OS/28/2010 2,000,000.00 2,016,480.00 1,999,376.43 1.147 AM 1.154 514 07/27/2012
3137EACK3A 2148 Federal HomeLoan Mortgage OS/27/2010 1,030,000.00 1,038,487.20 1,030,000.00 1.125 AM 1.109 514 07/27/2012
3137EACK3B 2149 Federal HomeLoan Mortgage OS/27/2010 2,707,000.00 2,729,305.68 2,707,000.00 1.125 AM 1.109 514 07/27/2012
3134G1MD3 2153 Federal HomeLoan Mortgage 07/22/2010 2,000,000.00 2,005,300,00 2,000,000,00 1.100 AM 1.085 143 07/22/2011
3134G1PK4 2158 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 08/11/2010 2,000,000.00 2,005,180.00 2,000,000.00 1,000 AM 0.986 713 02111/2013
3134G1TU8 2167 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 09/28/2010 2,000,000.00 2,000,640.00 2,000,000.00 0.800 0.789 577 09/28/2012
3134G1UR3 2169 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 09/28/2010 2,000,000.00 2,000,780.00 2,000,000.00 0.900 0,888 758 03/28/2013
3134G1C69 2177 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 12120/2010 2,000,000.00 1,990,620.00 2,000,000.00 0.850 AM 0.838 842 06/20/2013
3134G1G32 2179 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 12128/2010 2,000,000.00 1,997,420.00 2,000,000.00 1.000 AM 0.986 758 03/28/2013
3134G1P81 2180 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 01/07/2011 2,000,000.00 2,001,280.00 2,000,000.00 1.000 AM 0.986 678 01/07/2013
3134G1Y40 2183 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 02115/2011 2,000,000.00 1,994,700.00 2,000,000.00 1.100 AM 1.085 898 08/15/2013
3134G13K8 2185 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 02/24/2011 2,000,000.00 1,996,160.00 2,000,000,00 1.000 AM 0.986 815 05/24/2013
3134G12U7 2186 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 02123/2011 2,000,000.00 1,993,280,00 2,000,000,00 0.750 0.740 633 11/23/2012
3134G14B7 2187 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 02123/2011 2,000,00000 2,001,680,00 2,000,000.00 1.350 AM 1.332 906 08/23/2013
3136FMFRO 2127 Federal National Mortage Assoc 04/05/2010 2,000,000.00 2,002,020,00 2,000,000.00 1.500 AM 1.479 584 10/05/2012
3136FMPB4 2132 Federal National Mortage Assoc 04/29/2010 2,000,000.00 2,003,140.00 2,000,000.00 1.480 AM 1.460 608 10/29/2012
3136FMRH9 2136 Federal National Mortage Assoc 04/29/2010 2,000,000,00 2,003,760.00 2,000,000.00 1.550 1.529 608 10/29/2012
3136FPHU4 2168 Federal National Mortage Assoc 09/21/2010 2,000,000.00 2,000,360.00 2,000,000.00 0.875 AM 0.863 751 03/21/2013
3136FPQG5 2171 Federal National Mortage Assoc 10/26/2010 635,000.00 630,764.55 635,000.00 0.850 AM 0.837 878 07/26/2013
3136FPSK4 2172 Federal National Mortage Assoc 10/29/2010 2,000,000.00 1,987,960.00 1,999,567.78 0.675 AM 0.676 790 04/29/2013
3136FPL47 2178 Federal National Mortage Assoc 12/27/2010 2,000,000.00 1,989,820.00 2,000,000.00 1.000 AM 0.986 849 06/27/2013
3136FP5X1 2182 Federal National Mortage Assoc 01/28/2011 2,000,000.00 1,995,400.00 2,000,000.00 0.860 AM 0.848 699 01/28/2013---------
Subtotal and Average 62,799,488.05 68,372,000.00 68,338,557.43 68,370,944.21 1.013 690
Portfolio OTAY
AP
Run Date:03/17/2011 -15:21 PM (PRF_PM2)7,3,0
Report Ver.7.3.2
OTAY
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details -Investments
February 28,2011
Page 2
Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity
CUSIP Investment#Issuer Balance Date ParValue Market Value Book Value Rate S&P 360 Maturity Date
Certificates ofDeposit -Bank
2050003183-4 2121 California Bank &Trust 01/22/2010 79,108.00 79,108.00 79,108.00 1.380 1.380 327 01/22/2012---------
Subtotal and Average 293,393.71 79,108.00 79,108.00 79,108.00 1.380 327
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
LAIF 9001 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 07101/2004 11,900,249.75 11,917,639.86 11,900,249.75 0.512 0.505
LAIF BABS 2010 9012 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 04/21/2010 4,046,102.37 4,052,015.03 4,046,102.37 0.512 0.505---------
Subtotal and Average 22,614,209.26 15,946,352.12 15,969,654.89 15,946,352.12 0.505
San Diego County Pool
SD COUNTY POOL 9007 San Diego County 07101/2004 16,986,744.37 16,958,000.00 16,986,744.37 0.823 0.812---------
Subtotal and Average 16,986,744.37 16,986,744.37 16,958,000.00 16,986,744.37 0.812
Total and Average 104,922,626.05 101,384,204.49 101,345,320.32 101,383,148.70 0.899 466
Run Date:0311712011 -15:21
Portfolio OTAY
AP
PM (PRF]M2)7.3.0
OTAY
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details -Cash
February 28,2011
Page 3
Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to
CUSIP Investment#Issuer Balance Date Par Value MarketValue Book Value Rate S&P 360 Maturity
Union Bank
UNION MONEY 9002 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 07/01/2004 10,034.71 10,034.71 10,034.71 0.050 0.049
PETTY CASH 9003 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 07/01/2004 2,950.00 2,950.00 2,950.00 0.000
UNION OPERATING 9004 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 07/01/2004 1,409,780.09 1,409,780.09 1,409,780.09 0.142 0.140
PAYROLL 9005 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 07/01/2004 23,684.71 23,684.71 23,684.71 0.000
RESERVE-10 COPS 9010 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 04/20/2010 8,383.59 8,383.59 8,383.59 0.000
RESERVE-10 BABS 9011 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 04/20/2010 20,642.94 20,642.94 20,642.94 0.001 0.001
UBNA-2010 BOND 9013 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 04/20/2010 51.89 51.89 51.89 0.147 0.145
UBNA-FLEXACCT 9014 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 01/01/2011 25,793.66 25,793.66 25,793.66 0.000
Average Balance 0.00
Total Cash and Investments 104,922,626.05 102,885,526.08 102,846,641.91 102,884,470.29 0.899 466
Run Date:03/17/2011 -15:21
Portfolio OTAY
AP
PM (PRF]M2)7.3.0
OTAY
Activity Report
Sorted By Issuer
July 1,2010 -February 28,2011
CUSIP Investment#Issuer
Percent
of Portfolio
ParValue.
Beginning
Balance
Current Transaction
Rate Date
Purchases or
Deposits
ParValue .
Redemptions or
Withdrawals
Ending
Balance
Issuer:Berkshire Hathaway Fin
Corporate Notes
084664AF8 2094 Berkshire Hathaway Fin 4.200 12/15/2010 000 2,000,000.00
Subtotal and Balance 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00
IssuerSUbtotal 0.000%2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00
Issuer:STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Union Bank
UNION MONEY 9002 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0.050 133,929,541.96 133,929,517.24
PETTY CASH 9003 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 150.00 0.00
UNION OPERATING 9004 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0.142 4,819,322.92 4,454,254.82
PAYROLL 9005 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1,620,925.04 1,622,217.59
RESERVE-10 COPS 9010 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7,692.83 0.00
RESERVE-10 BABS 9011 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0.001 20,217.93 0.00
UBNA-2010 BOND 9013 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0.147 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00
UBNA-FLEXACCT 9014 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 50,000.00 24,206.34
Subtotal and Balance 1,083,666.90 150,447,850.68 150,030,195.99 1,501,321.59
-
Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF)
LAIF 9001 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0.512 59,845,764.02 66,450,463.98
LAIF BABS 2010 9012 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 0.512 46,345.00 12,000,242.63
Subtotal and Balance 34,504,949.71 59,892,109.02 78,450,706.61 15,946,352.12
IssuerSubtotal 16.958%35,588,616.61 210,339,959.70 228,480,902.60 17,447,673.71
Issuer:California Bank &Trust
Certificates of Deposit -Bank
Subtotal and Balance 79,108.00 79,108.00
Issuer SUbtotal 0.077%79,108.00 0.00 0.00 79,108.00
Run Dale:0311712011 -16:29
Portfolio OTAY
AP
DA (PRF_DA)7.2.0
Report VeL 7.3.2
OTAY
Activity Report Page 2
July 1,2010 -February 2B,2011
Par Value Par Value
Percent Beginning Current Transaction Purchases or Redemptions or Ending
CUSIP Investment#Issuer of Portfolio Balance Rate Oate Deposits Withdrawals Balance
Issuer:Federal Farm Credit Bank
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
31331GZ36 2155 Federal Farm Credit Bank 1.550 07/16/2010 4,000,000.00 0.00
31331GZ36 2155 Federal Farm Credit Bank 10/19/2010 000 4,000,000.00
31331JYF4 2161 Federal Fann Credit Bank 0.900 08/19/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
31331JYF4 2161 Federal Farm Credit Bank 11/19/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
31331JZV8 2164 Federal Farm Credit Bank 0.950 09/03/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
31331JM75 2170 Federal Farm Credit Bank 0.900 10/12/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
Subtotal and Balance 0.00 10,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 4,000,000.00
Issuer Subtotal 3.888%0.00 10,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 4,000,000.00
Issuer:Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
3133XXK22 2124 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.250 07108/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
3133XY2C8 2130 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.800 07/26/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
3133XY5H4 2131 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.450 07/30/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
3133XTAS4 2133 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.600 08/06/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
3133XY004 2138 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.700 08/13/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
3133XYCTO 2139 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.500 08/13/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
3133XYFP5 2142 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.020 08/25/2010 000 2,000,000.00
3133XYXR1 2150 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.250 07/14/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
3133XYXR1 2150 Federal Home Loan Bank 10/14/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
313370B09 2156 Federal Home Loan Bank 0.800 07/27/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
313370B09 2156 Federal Home Loan Bank 08/27/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
313370NF1 2160 Federal Home Loan Bank 0.800 08/20/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
313370NF1 2160 Federal Home Loan Bank 10/20/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
313370P77 2162 Federal Home Loan Bank 0.850 08/25/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
313370JRO 2163 Federal Home Loan Bank 0.850 08/27/2010 2,875,000.00 0.00
313370JRO 2163 Federal Home Loan Bank 09/27/2010 0.00 2,875,000.00
313370UP1 2165 Federal Home Loan Bank 0.875 09/13/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
313370VGO 2166 Federal Home Loan Bank 0.800 09/21/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
313370VGO 2166 Federal Home Loan Bank 10/21/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
313371LKO 2173 Federal Home Loan Bank 0.700 11/16/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
313371MR4 2174 Federal Home Loan Bank 0.700 11/22/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
313371RA6 2175 Federal Home Loan Bank 0.700 12/07/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
313371 U20 2176 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.000 12/03/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
Portfolio OTAY
AP
Run Dale:03/17/2011 -16:29 DA (PRF_DA)7:2.0
Report VeL 7.3:2
OTAY
Activity Report Page 3
July 1,2010 -February 28,2011
ParValue ParVafue
Percent Beginning Current Transaction Purchases or Redemptions or Ending
CUSIP Investment#Issuer ofPortfolio Balance Rate Date Deposits Withdrawals Balance
Issuer:Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
313372B45 2181 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.375 01/05/2011 2,000,000.00 0.00
313372GVO 2184 Federal Home Loan Bank 1.050 02/08/2011 2,000,000.00 0.00
Subtotal and Balance 20,000,000.00 26,875,000.00 24,875,000.00 22,000,000.00
Issuer Subtotal 21.383%20,000,000.00 26,875,000.00 24,875,000.00 22,000,000.00
Issuer:Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
3134G1AW4 2134 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 1.300 08/10/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
3134G1DE1 2140 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 1.650 11/19/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
3134G1EH3 2144 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 1.300 09/08/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
3134G1KZ6 2151 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 1.000 07/20/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
3134G1KZ6 2151 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 01/20/2011 000 2,000,000.00
3134G1MD3 2153 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 1.100 07/22/2010 2,000,000.00 000
3134G1PK4 2158 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 1.000 08/11/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
3134G1TU8 2167 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 0.800 09/28/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
3134G1UR3 2169 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 0.900 09/28/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
3134G1C69 2177 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 0.850 12/20/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
3134G1G32 2179 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 1.000 12/28/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
3134G1P81 2180 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 1.000 01107/2011 2,000,000.00 0.00
3134G1Y40 2183 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 1.100 02115/2011 2,000,000.00 0.00
3134G13K8 2185 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 1.000 02124/2011 2,000,000.00 0.00
3134G12U7 2186 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 0.750 02123/2011 2,000,000.00 0.00
3134G14B7 2187 Federal Home Loan Mortgage 1.350 02123/2011 2,000,000.00 0.00
Subtotal and Balance 11,737,000.00 24,000,000.00 8,000,000.00 27,737,000.00
IssuerSubtotal 26.959%11,737,000.00 24,000,000.00 8,000,000.00 27,737,000.00
Issuer:Federal National Mortage Assoc
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
31398AC91 2117
3136FJR45 2118
3136FJ4T5 2120
31398AH88 2123
3136FMJF2 2129
Run Date:0311712011 -16:29
Federal National Mortage Assoc 1.500 07/20/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
Federal National MortageAssoc 2.750 01/25/2011 0.00 2,000,000.00
Federal National Mortage Assoc 1.500 08/16/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
Federal National Mortage Assoc 1.500 09/24/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
Federal National MortageAssoc 1.250 01/14/2011 0.00 2,000,000.00
Portfolio OTAY
AP
DA (PRF_DAl 7.2.0
Report Ver.7.3.2
DTAY
Activity Report Page 4
July 1,2010 -February 28,2011
Par Value Par Value
Percent Beginning Current Transaction Purchases or Redemptions or Ending
CUSIP Investment#Issuer ofPortfolio Balance Rate Date Deposits Withdrawals Balance
Issuer:Federal National Mortage Assoc
Federal Agency Issues-Callable
31398AQ47 2135 Federal National Mortage Assoc 1.600 11/05/2010 000 2,000,000.00
3136FMRG1 2137 Federal National Mortage Assoc 1.300 11/10/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
31398AS78 2143 Federal National MortageAssoc 1.400 08/25/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
31398AW65 2152 Federal National MortageAssoc 1.000 07/27/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
31398AW65 2152 Federal National Mortage Assoc 10/27/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
3136FMX82 2154 Federal National Mortage Assoc 1.000 07/26/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
3136FMX82 2154 Federal National Mortage Assoc 01/26/2011 000 2,000,000.00
3136FM4N1 2157 Federal National Mortage Assoc 1.000 08/11/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
3136FM4N1 2157 Federal National Mortage Assoc 02/11/2011 0.00 2,000,000.00
3136FM6A7 2159 Federal National Mortage Assoc 1.000 08/19/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
3136FM6A7 2159 Federal National Mortage Assoc 11/19/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
3136FPHU4 2168 Federal National Mortage Assoc 0.875 09/21/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
3136FPQG5 2171 Federal National Mortage Assoc 0.850 10/26/2010 635,000.00 0.00
3136FPSK4 2172 Federal National Mortage Assoc 0.675 10/29/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
3136FPL47 2178 Federal National Mortage Assoc 1.000 12/27/2010 2,000,000.00 0.00
3136FP5X1 2182 Federal National Mortage Assoc 0.860 01/28/2011 2,000,000.00 0.00
Subtotal and Balance 22,000,000.00 16,635,000.00 24,000,000.00 14,635,000.00
IssuerSubtotal 14.225%22,000,000.00 16,635,000.00 24,000,000.00 14,635,000.00
Issuer:General Electric Capital
Corporate Notes
36962G2S2 2044 General Electric Capital 5.000 12/01/2010 0.00 2,000,000.00
Subtotal and Balance 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00
IssuerSubtotal 0.000%2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00
Issuer:Neighborhood National Bank
Certificates of Deposit -Bank
1008995288 2119 Neighborhood National Bank 1.400 12/09/2010 0.00 1,000,000.00
1006200563-2 2126 Neighborhood National Bank 1.400 02/04/2011 0.00 2,000,000.00
Subtotal and Balance 3,000,000.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00
IssuerSubtotal 0.000%3,000,000.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 0.00
Run Date:03/17/2011 -16:29
Portfolio DTAY
AP
DA (PRF_DAl7.2.0
Report Ver.7.3.2
DTAY
Activity Report
July 1,2010 -February 28,2011
Page 5
CUSIP Investment#Issuer
Percent
ofPortfolio
ParValue
Beginning
Balance
Current Transaction
Rate Date
Purchasesor
Deposits
ParValue
Redemptions or
Withdrawals
Ending
Balance
Issuer:San Diego County
San Diego County Pool
SO COUNTY POOL 9007
Run Date:03/17/2011 -16:29
San Diego County
Subtotal and Balance
Issuer Subtotal 16.510%
Total 100.000%
18,878,241.73
18,878,241.73
115,282,966.34
0.823 108,502.64
108,502.64
108,502.64
287,958,462.34
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
300,355,902.60
16,986,744.37
16,986,744.37
102,885,526.08
Portfolio DTAY
AP
DA (PRF_DA)7.2.0
Report VeL 7.3.2
OTAY
GASB 31 Compliance Detail
Sorted by Fund -Fund
JUly 1,2010 -February 28,2011
Adjustment in Value
Investment Maturity Beginning Purchase Addition Redemption Amortization Change in Ending
CUSIP Investment#Fund Class Date Invested Value ofPrincipal to Principal of Principal Adjustment Market Value Invested Value
Fund:Treasury Fund
LAIF 9001 99 Fair Value 18,535,367.70 0.00 59,845,764.02 66,450,463.98 0.00 -13,027.88 11,917,639.86
UNION MONEY 9002 99 Amortized 10,009.99 0.00 133,929,541.96 133,929,517.24 0.00 0.00 10,034.71
PETIYCASH 9003 99 Amortized 2,800.00 0.00 150.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,950.00
UNION OPERATING 9004 99 Amortized 1,044,711.99 0.00 4,819,322.92 4,454,254.82 0.00 0.00 1,409,780.09
PAYROLL 9005 99 Amortized 24,977.26 0.00 1,620,925.04 1,622,217.59 0.00 0.00 23,684.71
SO COUNTY POOL 9007 99 FairValue 18,851,000.00 0.00 108,502.64 2,000,000.00 0.00 -1,502.64 16,958,000.00
36962G2S2 2044 99 FairValue 12/01/2010 2,032,000.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -32,000.00 0.00
084664AF8 2094 99 FairValue 12/15/2010 2,030,740.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -30,740.00 0.00
31398AC91 2117 99 FairValue 01/20/2012 2,000,620.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -620.00 0.00
3136FJR45 2118 99 FairValue 01/25/2013 2,005,620.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -5,620.00 0.00
1008995288 2119 99 Amortized 12/09/2010 1,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3136FJ4T5 2120 99 Fair Value 08/16/2012 2,002,500.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -2,500.00 0.00
2050003183-4 2121 99 Amortized 01/22/2012 79,108.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 79,108.00
31398AH88 2123 99 Fair Value 09/24/2012 2,004,380.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -4,380.00 0.00
3133XXK22 2124 99 Fair Value 06/25/2012 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
1006200563-2 2126 99 Amortized 02/04/2011 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3136FMFRO 2127 99 Fair Value 10/05/2012 2,012,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -10,480.00 2,002,020.00
3133XXRW9 2128 99 Fair Value 06/29/2012 2,012,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -11,000.00 2,001,500.00
3136FMJF2 2129 99 FairValue 05/14/2012 2,009,380.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -9,380.00 0.00
3133XY2C8 2130 99 FairValue 01/29/2013 2,001,880.00 0.00 000 2,000,000.00 0.00 -1,880.00 0.00
3133XY5H4 2131 99 FairValue 07/30/2012 2,001,880.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -1,880.00 0.00
3136FMPB4 2132 99 FairValue 10/29/2012 2,010,620.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -7,480.00 2,003,140.00
3134G1AW4 2134 99 FairValue 05/10/2012 2,001,920.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -1,920.00 0.00
31398AQ47 2135 99 FairValue 11/05/2012 2,007,500.00 000 0.00 2,000,000.00 000 -7,500.00 0.00
3136FMRH9 2136 99 Fair Value 10/29/2012 2,014,380.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -10,620.00 2,003,760.00
3136FMRG1 2137 99 Fair Value 05/10/2012 2,005,620.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -5,620.00 0.00
3133XYOO4 2138 99 Fair Value 11/13/2012 2,002,500.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -2,500.00 0.00
3133XYCTO 2139 99 Fair Value 08/13/2012 2,002,500.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -2,500.00 0.00
3134G10E1 2140 99 Fair Value 11/19/2012 2,008,000.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -8,000.00 0.00
RESERVE-10 COPS 9010 99 Amortized 690.76 0.00 7,692.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,383.59
RESERVE-10 BABS 9011 99 Amortized 425.01 0.00 20,217.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,642.94
3133XYFP5 2142 99 Fair Value 11/25/2011 2,001,880.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -1,880.00 0.00
Portfolio OTAY
AP
Run Date:03/17/2011 -16:30 GO (PRF_GO)7.1.1
Report Ver.7.3.2
OTAY
GASB 31 Compliance Detail Page 2
Sorted by Fund -Fund
Adjustmentin Value
Investment Maturity Beginning Purchase Addition Redemption Amortization Changein Ending
CUSIP Investment#Fund Class Date Invested Value ofPrincipal to Principal ofPrincipal Adjustment Market Value Invested Value
Fund:Treasury Fund
31398AS78 2143 99 FairValue OS/25/2012 2,001,880.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -1,880.00 0.00
3134G1EH3 2144 99 FairValue 06/08/2012 2,002,540.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -2,540.00 0.00
LAIF BABS 2010 9012 99 FairValue 16,026,300.42 0.00 46,345.00 12,000,242.63 0.00 -20,387.75 4,052,015.03
UBNA-2010 BOND 9013 99 Amortized 51.89 0.00 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 51.89
3133XYNSO 2145 99 Fair Value 12/10/2012 2,009,380.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4,160.00 2,005,220.00
3137EACK3 2146 99 FairValue 07/27/2012 2,014,380.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,100.00 2,016,480.00
3133XYSH9 2147 99 Fair Value 09/21/2012 2,010,000.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4,700.00 2,005,300.00
3137EACK3A 2148 99 FairValue 07/27/2012 1,037,405.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,081.50 1,038,487.20
3137EACK3B 2149 99 Fair Value 07/27/2012 2,726,463.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,842.35 2,729,305.68
3133XYXR1 2150 99 FairVaiue 01/14/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3134G1KZ6 2151 99 Fair Value 07/20/2012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
31398AW65 2152 99 Fair Value 07/27/2012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3134G1M03 2153 99 Fair Value 07/22/2011 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,300.00 2,005,300.00
3136FMX82 2154 99 Fair Value 10/26/2012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
313370B09 2156 99 Fair Value 04/27/2012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3136FM4N1 2157 99 Fair Value 02/11/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3134G1PK4 2158 99 Fair Value 02/11/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,180.00 2,005,180.00
313370NF1 2160 99 Fair Value 11/20/2012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
31331JYF4 2161 99 Fair Value 02119/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
313370P77 2162 99 Fair Value 02125/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 120.00 2,000,120.00
313370JRO 2163 99 Fair Value 08/27/2012 0.00 2,875,000.00 0.00 2,875,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
31331JZV8 2164 99 Fair Value 05/03/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -1,440.00 1,998,560.00
313370UP1 2165 99 Fair Value 03/13/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 120.00 2,000,120.00
313370VGO 2166 99 Fair Value 09/21/2012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3134GHU8 2167 99 FairVaiue 09/28/2012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 640.00 2,000,640.00
3136FPHU4 2168 99 FairVaiue 03/21/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 360.00 2,000,360.00
3134G1UR3 2169 99 Fair Value 03/28/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 780.00 2,000,780.00
31331JM75 2170 99 Fair Value 04/1212013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -5,680.00 1,994,320.00
3136FPQG5 2171 99 Fair Value 07/26/2013 0.00 635,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4,235.45 630,764.55
3136FPSK4 2172 99 Fair Value 04/29/2013 0.00 1,999,500.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -11,540.00 1,987,960.00
3133XTAS4 2133 99 Fair Value 11/06/2012 2,001,880.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 -1,880.00 0.00
313371LKO 2173 99 Fair Value 11/16/2012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -8,800.00 1,991,200.00
313371MR4 2174 99 Fair Value OS/22/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -18,760.00 1,981,240.00
313371RA6 2175 99 Fair Value 12/07/2012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -8,300.00 1,991,700.00
313371U20 2176 99 Fair Value 06/03/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -11,420.00 1,988,580.00
31331GZ36 2155 99 Fair Value 07/19/2012 000 4,012,400.00 0.00 4,000,000.00 0.00 -12,400.00 0.00
3134G1C69 2177 99 Fair Value 06/20/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -9,380.00 1,990,620.00
Portfolio OTA Y
AP
RunDate:03/17/2011 -16:30 GO (PRF_GO)7.1.1
ReportVee.7.3.2
OTAY
GASS 31 Compliance Detail Page 3
Sorted by Fund -Fund
Adjustmentin Value
Investment Maturity Beginning Purchase Addition Redemption Amortization Change in Ending
CUSIP Investment#Fund Class Date Invested Value of Principal to Principal of Principal Adjustment Market Value Invested Value
Fund:Treasury Fund
3136FPL47 2178 99 Fair Value 06/27/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -10,180.00 1,989,820.00
3134G1G32 2179 99 FairVaiue 03/28/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -2,580.00 1,997,420.00
3134G1P81 2180 99 Fair Value 01/07/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,280.00 2,001,280.00
3136FM6A7 2159 99 Fair Value 11/19/2012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
313372B45 2181 99 Fair Value 07/05/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -660.00 1,999,340.00
3136FP5X1 2182 99 Fair Value 01/28/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -4,600.00 1,995,400.00
3134G1Y40 2183 99 Fair Value 08/15/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -5,300.00 1,994,700.00
313372GVO 2184 99 Fair Value 02/08/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 000 0.00 0.00 -3,180.00 1,996,820.00
3134G13K8 2185 99 Fair Value 05/24/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -3,840.00 1,996,160.00
3134G12U7 2186 99 FairValue 11/23/2012 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -6,720.00 1,993,280.00
3134G14B7 2187 99 FairValue 08/23/2013 0.00 2,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,680.00 2,001,680.00
UBNA-FLEX ACCT 9014 99 Amortized 0.00 50,000.00 0.00 24,206.34 0.00 0.00 25,793.66
Subtotal 115,548,292.05 77,571,900.00 210,398,462.34 300,355,902.60 0.00 -316,109.87 102,846,641.91
Total 115,548,292.05 77,571,900.00 210,398,462.34 300,355,902.60 0.00 -316,109.87 102,846,641.91
Portfolio OTAY
AP
Run Date:03/17/2011 -16:30 GD (pRF_GD)7.1.1
Report VeL 7.3.2
OTAY
Duration Report
Sorted by Investment Type -Investment Type
Through 02/28/2011
Security ID
3137EACK3
3134G1C69
3134G1G32
3137EACK3A
3134G1Y40
3137EACK3B
3134G1PK4
3134G14B7
3134G12U7
3134GHU8
3134G1UR3
3134G1P81
3134G13K8
3134G1MD3
3136FPQG5
3136FPSK4
3136FPL47
3136FPHU4
3136FP5X1
3136FMFRO
3136FMPB4
3136FMRH9
313371MR4
313370P77
3133XXRW9
313371 U20
313370UP1
313371RA6
313371LKO
313372GVO
Investment#
2146
2177
2179
2148
2183
2149
2158
2187
2186
2167
2169
2180
2185
2153
2171
2172
2178
2168
2182
2127
2132
2136
2174
2162
2128
2176
2165
2175
2173
2184
Fund
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
99
Issuer
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal Home Loan Mortgage
Federal National Mortage Assoc
Federal National Mortage Assoc
Federal National Mortage Assoc
Federal National Mortage Assoc
Federal National MortageAssoc
Federal National MortageAssoc
Federal National MortageAssoc
Federal National MortageAssoc
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Federal Home Loan Bank
Investment
Class
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Fair
Book
Value
1,999,376.43
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,030,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,707,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
635,000.00
1,999,567.78
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
Par
Value
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,030,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,707,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
635,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
Market Current
Value Rate
2,016,480.00 1.147196
1,990,620.00 .8500000
1,997,420.00 1.000000
1,038,487.20 1.125000
1,994,700.00 1.100000
2,729,305.68 1.125000
2,005,180.00 1.000000
2,001,680.00 1.350000
1,993,280.00 .7501010
2,000,640.00 .8000000
2,000,780.00 .9000000
2,001,280.00 1.000000
1,996,160.00 1.000000
2,005,300.00 1.100000
630,764.55 .8500830
1,987,960.00 .6750000
1,989,820.00 1.000000
2,000,360.00 .8750000
1,995,400.00 .8600000
2,002,020.00 1.500000
2,003,140.00 1.480000
2,003,760.00 1.550000
1,981,240.00 .7000000
2,000,120.00 .8500000
2,001,500.00 1.250000
1,988,580.00 1.000000
2,000,12000 .8750000
1,991,700.00 .7000000
1,991,200.00 .7000000
1,996,820.00 1.050000
YTM
360
1.154
0.838
0.986
1.109
1.085
1.109
0.986
1.332
0.740
0.789
0.888
0.986
0.986
1.085
0.837
0.676
0.986
0.863
0.848
1.479
1.460
1.529
0.690
0.838
1.233
0.986
0.863
0.690
0.690
1.036
Current
Yield
0558
1.057
1.063
0536
1.210
0.536
0.865
1.315
0.947
0.780
0.881
0.965
1.088
0.568
1.132
0.957
1.223
0.866
0.982
1.436
1.384
1.435
1128
0.847
1.193
1.258
0.872
0.938
0.960
1133
Maturityl Modified
Call Date Duration
07/27/2012 1.393
06/20/2013 2.269
03/28/2013 2.044
07/27/2012 1.390
08/15/2013 2.413
07/27/2012 1.390
02/11/2013 1.921
08/23/2013 2.428
11/23/2012 1.711
09/28/2012 1.557
03/28/2013 2.043
01/07/2013 1.826
05/24/2013 2.198
07/2212011 0.391
07/26/2013 2.368
04/29/2013 2.134
06/27/2013 2.283
03/21/2013 2.024
01/28/2013 1.889
10105/2012 1.574
10/29/2012 1.628
10/29/2012 1.626
05/22/2013 2.195
02/25/2013 1.962
06/29/2012 1.310
06/03/2013 2.216
03/13/2013 2.002
12/07/2012 1.748
11/16/2012 1.689
0210812013 1.909
Run Date:03/17/2011 -16:31 Page 1
Portfolio OTAY
AP
DU(PRF_DU)7.1.1
Report VeL 7.3.2
OTAY
Duration Report
Sorted by Investment Type -InvestmentType
Through 02128/2011
Investment Book Par Market Current YTM Current Maturityl Modified
Security 10 Investment#Fund Issuer Class Value Value Value Rate 360 Yield Call Date Duration
313372B45 2181 99 Federal Home loanBank Fair 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,999,340.00 1.375000 1.356 1390 07/05/2013 2.294
3133XYNSO 2145 99 Federal Home loan Bank Fair 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,005,220.00 1.280000 1.262 1.131 12/10/2012 1.746
3133XYSH9 2147 99 Federal Home Loan Bank Fair 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 2,005,300.00 1.125178 1.110 0.953 09/21/2012 1.536
31331JM75 2170 99 Federal Farm Credit Bank Fair 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,994,320.00 .9000000 0.888 1.036 04/12/2013 2.080
31331JZV8 2164 99 Federal Farm Credit Bank Fair 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 1,998,560.00 .9500950 0.937 0.984 05/03/2013 2.137
2050003183-4 2121 99 California Bank &Trust Amort 79,108.00 79,108.00 79,108.00 1.380000 1.380 1.380 01/22/2012 0.890t
LAIF 9001 99 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Fair 11,900,249.75 11,900,249.75 11,917,639.86 .5120000 0.505 0.512 0.000
LAIF BABS 2010 9012 99 STATE OFCALIFORNIA Fair 4,046,102.37 4,046,102.37 4,052,015.03 .5120000 0.505 0.512 0.000
LAIF COPS07 9009 99 STATE OF CALIFORNIA Fair 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.530000 1.509 1.530 0.000
SO COUNTY 9007 99 San Diego County Fair 16,986,744.37 16,986,744.37 16,958,000.00 .8230000 0.812 0823 0.000
Report Total 101,383,148.70 101,384,204.49 101,345,320.32 0.905 1.253t
t =Duration can not be calculated on these investments due to incomplete Market price data.
Run Date:03/17/2011 -16:31 Page 2
Portfolio OTA Y
AP
DU (PRF_DU)7.1.1
ReportVer.7.3.2
STAFF REPORT
April 6,2011
DIV.NO.W.O.lG.F.NO:
MEETING DATE:TYPE MEETING:
SUBMITIED BY:
Regular Board
Sean Prendergast,Finance ("
Supervisor,Payroll &AP
APPROVED BY:Joseph Beachem,Chief Financial Officer
(Chief)
APPROVED BY:German Alvarez,Assistant General Manager
(Asst.GM):
SUBJECT:Accounts Payable Demand List
PURPOSE:
Attached is the list of demands for the Board's information.
FISCAL IMPACT:
SUMMARY NET DEMANDS
CHECKS (2027682-2028151)
WIRE TO:
CALPERS -OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
CITY OF CHULA VISTA -BI-MONTHLY SEWER CHARGES
CITY TREASURER -METROPOLITAN SEWERAGE SYSTEM
CITY TREASURER -RECLAIMED WATER PURCHASE
CITY TREASURER -WATER DELIVERIES
DELTA HEALTH SYSTEMS -DENTAL &COBRA CLAIMS
LANDESBANK -CERTIFICATES OF PARTICIPATION
SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER WATER DELIVERIES
SPECIAL DIST RISK MGMT AUTH -INSURANCE PREMIUM
UNION BANK -ID 27 DEBT SERVICE FUND
UNION BANK -PAYROLL TAXES
$2,737,370.81
$57,800.00
$2,775,831.85
$263,200.00
$46,169.62
$81,665.49
$51,835.59
$2,640.03
$2,371,132.30
$223,237.17
$129,606.25
$452,770.94
TOTAL CASH DISBURSEMENTS $9,193,260.05
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the Board receive the attached list of demands.
Jb/Attachment
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 3/2/2011 TO 3/30/2011
Check#Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2028063 03/30/11 11798 A D HINSHAW ASSOCIATES 3578 03/07/11 CONSULTINGSERVICES 158.75 158.75
2028064 03/30/11 11466 A&G INSTRUMENT SERVICEAND 30931 03/03/11 CALIBRATION SERVICE 651.00 651.00
2027861 03/16/11 12678 AADS OFFICE SOLUTIONS 69247 02/21/11 SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 100.00 100.00
2027682 03/02/11 08488 ABLEFORCE INC 2566 02/10/11 CONSULTING SERVICES 8,075.00 8,075.00
2027862 03/16/11 08488 ABLEFORCE INC 2584 02/22/11 CONSULTING SERVICES 9,520.00
2603 03/08/11 CONSULTING SERVICES 9,350.00 18,870.00
2027946 03/23/11 12759 ACADMEY PROPERTIES Ref002412695 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst #0000169515 46.17 46.17
2027683 03/02/11 12174 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC 37090709 02/10/11 WELL PROJECT 426,280.21 426,280.21
2027863 03/16/11 12174 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC 37090720 02/10/11 ENGINEERING SERVICES 25,692.61 25,692.61
2028065 03/30/11 12174 AECOM TECHNICAL SERVICES INC 37096945 03/04/11 ENGINEERING SERVICES 50,818.91 50,818.91
2028066 03/30/11 11462 AEGIS ENGINEERING MGMT INC 1016 03/08/11 PLAN CHECKING 11,469.84
1103 03/08/11 DEVELOPER PLANCHECKS 8,002.50 19,472.34
2027864 03/16/11 11518 AES GLOBAL INC AES02181101 02/18/11 WI-FIINSTALLATION 4,600.00 4,600.00
2028067 03/30/11 07732 AIRGAS SPECIALTY PRODUCTS INC 131190042 03/09/11 AQUA AMMONIA 1,737.06
131190043 03/09/11 AQUA AMMONIA 1,484.10 3,221.16
2027980 03/23/11 00132 AIRGAS WEST INC 103144125 02/28/11 BREATHING AIR 31.35 31.35
2027865 03/16/11 03787 ALLIED TRENCH SHORING SERVICE 1014147 02/24/11 TRAFFICCONES 28"10LB 419.79 419.79
2027803 03/09/11 02362 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #509 0509004267372 02/25/11 TRASH SERVICES TP 150.16 150.16
2027981 03/23/11 02362 ALLIED WASTE SERVICES #509 0509004265431 02/25/11 TRASH SERVICES 989.66
0509004266696 02/25/11 CONTAINER RENTAL 213.29 1,202.95
2027866 03/16/11 12677 ALLOYSOFTWARE 1021811YT7 02/18/11 SOFTWARE LICENSE 1,593.75 1,593.75
2027867 03/16/11 01369 AMERICAN BACKFLOW INV17762 02/22/11 BACKFLOW GAUGE 1,324.45 1,324.45
2027684 03/02/11 06166 AMERICAN MESSAGING L1109570LC 03/01/11 PAGERSERVICES 145.87 145.87
2027685 03/02/11 00187 AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS 002761 03/01/11 MEMBERSHIP FEE 151.00 151.00
2027804 03/09/11 03446 AMERICAN SOCIETYOF CIVIL 002769 03/01/11 REGISTRATION FEE 25.00 25.00
2027686 03/02/11 00107 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSN 0000390113 01/31/11 BOOKS 149.50 149.50
2027687 03/02/11 00107 AMERICAN WATER WORKSASSN 7000321889 02/01/11 MEMBERSHIP DUES 95.00 95.00
Page 1 of 24
--- ---------------------------
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FORCHECKS 2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 3/2/2011 TO 3/30/2011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2028068 03/30/11 00002 ANSWER INC 4723 03/22/11 ANSWERING SERVICES 1,000.00 1,000.00
2027805 03/09/11 08967 ANTHEM BLUE CROSS EAP 40946 02121/11 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE 365.70 365.70
2027947 03/23/11 12757 ANTONETTE MORENO Ref002412693 03/22111 UB Refund Cst #0000168811 30.00 30.00
2028069 03/30/11 03357 APEX ADVERTISING INC 56451 03/08/11 UNIFORM SWEATSHIRTS 2,371.36 2,371.36
2027688 03/02/11 01971 ARMORCAST PRODUCTS COMPANY 01262891N 02/10/11 VAULT LIDS 3,655.30 3,655.30
2027755 03/09/11 12704 ASHWAQ SHABA Ref002412463 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst#0000143739 13.79 13.79
2028070 03/30/11 03143 ASIAN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION 1461 03/08/11 MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 300.00 300.00
2027689 03/02/11 05758 AT&T 33784130450211 02/07/11 PHONE SERVICE (HI HEAD P/S-SCADA)31.43 31.43
2027868 03/16/11 05758 AT&T 082164572802251102/25/11 INTERNET BANDWIDTH 2,275.35 2,275.35
2027869 03/16/11 05758 AT&T 61942256050211 02/20/11 PHONE SVC (INTERAGENCYWTR MTR CONN)33.30 33.30
2027982 03/23/11 07785 AT&T 000002185683 03/02/11 PHONESERVICES 5,900.48 5,900.48
2027870 03/16/11 08330 AT&T INTERNET SERVICES 8547826250211 02122/11 INTERNETBANDWIDTH 1,200.00 1,200.00
2027948 03/23/11 12746 ATLANTIC &PACIFIC REAL ESTATE Ref002412682 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst#0000143403 114.52 114.52
2028071 03/30/11 12468 ATLAS COPCO COMPRESSORS LLC 688800 03/07/11 AIR COMPRESSOR 6,371.43 6,371.43
2027756 03/09/11 12710 AXIA REAL ESTATE GROUP INC Ref002412469 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000160863 66.73 66.73
2027806 03/09/11 07730 AZTEC FENCE CO INC AZ273 02111111 GATE REPAIR 1,700.00 1,700.00
2027757 03/09/11 12731 BAC FIELD SERVICES CORP Ref002412491 03/08/11 UBRefund Cst#0000173458 65.21 65.21
2027807 03/09/11 08673 BACKFLOW SERVICES 4361 02/16/11 REPAIRED 8"BACKFLOW 415.00 415.00
2027808 03/09/11 08024 BACKGROUND PROFILES INC 2611 02/28/11 BACKGROUND CHECK 28.00 28.00
2027690 03/02/11 12684 BALDWIN &SONS LLC 002751 02/24/11 WIO REFUND 00740-060043 1,871.69 1,871.69
2027871 03/16/11 03529 BAME,STEVE 002782 03/10/11 SAFETY BOOTS 138.26 138.26
2027758 03/09/11 12723 BANCROFT REALTY Ref002412483 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000171556 19.51 19.51
2027691 03/02/11 06520 BENSKIN,RONALD 002753 02124/11 SAFETYSHOES 118.52
002754 02/25/11 SAFETYSHOES 108.64 227.16
2027872 03/16/11 08144 BEST BUY 002786 03/15/11 COMPUTER LOAN 858.53 858.53
Page 2 of 24
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 3/2/2011 TO 3/30/2011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2027759 03/09/11 12713 BILL DE RIDDER Ref002412472 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000163210 48.83 48.83
2027949 03/23/11 12740 BLANCO TRUST Ref002412675 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst #0000030791 160.51 160.51
2027983 03/23/11 12577 BLASTCO INC 03/01/11 RESERVOIR COATING 65,374.20 65,374.20
2027760 03/09/11 12690 BONG LEE Ref002412448 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000015163 98.46 98.46
2027692 03/02/11 10970 BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC BPI071629 02/07/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,121.71
BPI071628 02/07/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 717.06 1,838.77
2027809 03/09/11 10970 BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC BPI074192 02/16/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 2,214.60
BPI073382 02/14/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,352.28
BPI073381 02/14/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 584.49 4,151.37
2027873 03/16/11 10970 BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC BP1075723 02/23/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 1,036.40
BP1075722 02/23/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 848.48
BPI074921 02/18/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 763.17 2,648.05
2027984 03/23/11 10970 BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC BPI076519 02/28/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 706.70
BP1077382 03/01/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 477.28 1,183.98
2028072 03/30/11 10970 BRENNTAG PACIFIC INC BPI078358 03/04/11 SODIUM HYPOCHLORITE 994.91 994.91
2027761 03/09/11 12696 BRIAN WAGNER Ref002412455 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000087474 33.28 33.28
2027874 03/16/11 01232 BRODING'S BATTERY 26299 02/16/11 BATTERY SUPPLIES 217.39
13205 02/17/11 BATTERY SUPPLIES 149.97
26343 02/17/11 BATTERY SUPPLIES 108.70 476.06
2027985 03/23/11 01232 BRODING'S BATTERY 26644 02/28/11 BATTERYSUPPLIES 443.54
26645 02/28/11 BATTERYSUPPLIES 145.62 589.16
2028073 03/30/11 01232 BRODING'S BATTERY 26157 02/10/11 BATTERY 92.38 92.38
2027875 03/16/11 00223 C W MCGRATH INC 38642 02/22/11 CRUSHED ROCK 218.52
38656 02/23/11 CRUSHED ROCK 175.92 394.44
2027986 03/23/11 00223 C W MCGRATH INC 38728 03/03/11 CRUSHED ROCK 474.64 474.64
2028074 03/30/11 00223 C W MCGRATH INC 38770 03/09/11 CRUSHED ROCK 1,070.36
38780 03/10/11 CRUSHED ROCK 190.16 1,260.52
2028075 03/30/11 02920 CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL 101185 03/10/11 ASPHALT 1,222.09 1,222.09
2027693 03/02/11 05211 CALIFORNIA FOUNDATION ON THE 002760 02/11/11 REGISTRATION FEE 3,000.00 3,000.00
2027810 03/09/11 08538 CALIFORNIA HIGHWAYPATROL 002770 03/03/11 COLLISION REPORT 10.00 10.00
Page 3 of 24
---------------_."-~_..._,_.__.._----_._.._._---~_._--~---
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FORCHECKS 2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 3/2/2011 TO 3/30/2011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2027811 03109/11 01004 CALOLYMPIC SAFETY 080669 02/14/11 AMMONIA CAL-GAS 334.46 334.46
2027876 03/16/11 01004 CALOLYMPIC SAFETY 084012 02/24/11 NFPASIGNS 286.35 286.35
2028076 03/30/11 01004 CALOLYMPIC SAFETY 0844801 03/07/11 SPILL KITS 2,610.09
084305 03/04/11 TUBE FITTINGS 53:64 2,663.73
2027762 03/09/11 12705 CARLOSVELEZ Ref002412464 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst#0000154164 17.88 17.88
2027987 03/23/11 02758 CARMEL BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC 7298 03/01/11 RECORDS ASSISTANCE 1,761.21
7297 03101/11 RECORDS STORAGE 375.00
7296 03/01/11 SCANNING SERVICES 46.76 2,182.97
2028077 03/30/11 02758 CARMEL BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC 7295 03/01/11 SCANNING SERVICES 205.08 205.08
2027877 03/16/11 12736 CATHY&BRET BORDEAUX 233036201REF 03/14/11 CUSTOMER REFUND 383.24 383.24
2027988 03/23/11 03232 COW GOVERNMENT INC WPH4615 02/28/11 VOIP MODULE 4,999.24
WQK3636 03103/11 VOIP GEAR 4,999.24 9,998.48
2027989 03/23/11 09801 CENTERBEAMINC 129745 02/01/11 NETWORKMONITORING 1,697.00 1,697.00
2028078 03/30/11 01126 CENTURY WHEEL &RIM CN6091801 02/24/11 REPAIR PARTS 181.06 181.06
2028079 03/30/11 02999 CHARLES,DAVID 002799 03/23/11 TRAVEL EXPENSE 143.47 143.47
2027694 03/02/11 12683 CHEVRON STATION INC #209663 002750 02/24/11 W/O REFUND D0197-XX6284 2,412.06 2,412.06
2027990 03/23/11 02026 CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL AR038828 03/15/11 GARDEN TOUR 660.00 660.00
2027991 03/23/11 04119 CLARKSON LAB &SUPPLYINC 54574 02/26/11 BACTERIOLOGICAL SERVICES 392.00
54575 02/26/11 BACTERIOLOGICAL SERVICES 312.00
54576 02/26/11 BACTERIOLOGICAL SERVICES 312.00
54571 02/26/11 BACTERIOLOGICAL SERVICES 72.00
54572 02/26/11 BACTERIOLOGICAL SERVICES 45.50
54573 02/26/11 BACTERIOLOGICAL SERVICES 45.50 1,179.00
2027812 03/09/11 11520 CLINICAL LABORATORY OF 912920 02/15/11 LAB ANALYSIS 70.00 70.00
2028080 03/30/11 11520 CLINICAL LABORATORY OF 913290 03/09/11 LAB ANALYSIS 342.00 342.00
2027695 03/02/11 08160 COMPLETE OFFICE 12613890 01/26/11 PLUNGER LOCKS 147.79 147.79
2027992 03/23/11 08160 COMPLETE OFFICE 12683000 02/28/11 COPY PAPER 1,497.57 1,497.57
2028081 03/30/11 08160 COMPLETE OFFICE C12448550 CREDIT MEMO (181.60)
12675780 02/24/11 TONER CARTRIDGES 1,013.55 831.95
Page 4 of24
------
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 3/2/2011 TO 3/30/2011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2027878 03/16/11 11510 CONFERENCE CALL.COM 2670520455 02/28/11 CONFERENCE CALL 60.41 60.41
2027950 03/23/11 12761 CONNIE CARROLL Ref002412697 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst #0000172015 72.57 72.57
2027813 03/09/11 04398 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 002771 03/08/11 REGISTRATION FEE 55.00 55.00
2027879 03/16/11 04398 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 002780 03/09/11 REGISTRATION FEE 55.00 55.00
2027993 03/23/11 04398 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT 002793 03/22/11 REGISTRATION FEE 55.00 55.00
2027814 03/09/11 03706 CONSUMERS PIPE &SUPPLY S1149495002 02/14/11 METER MATERIALS 17.49 17.49
2027880 03/16/11 10565 COOPER,BRIAN 002781 03/10/11 SAFETYBOOTS 144.58 144.58
2027994 03/23/11 12282 CORELOGIC INFORMATION 80143551 02/28/11 REALQUEST BUNDLE 241.67 241.67
2027696 03/02/11 12334 CORODATA MEDIASTORAGE INC DS1241828 02/07/11 DATA STORAGE 258.27 258.27
2028082 03/30/11 12334 CORODATA MEDIA STORAGE INC DS1242296 03107/11 DATA STORAGE 263.76 263.76
2028083 03/30/11 02612 COUNCILOF WATER UTILITIES 002808 03/23/11 MONTHLY MEETING 25.00 25.00
2027881 03/16/11 00184 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO DEH110369D11 02/23/11 SHUT DOWN TEST 1,278.00
DEH110368D11 02/23/11 SHUT DOWN TEST 1,171.50
DEH110372D11 02/23/11 SHUT DOWN TEST 994.00
DEH110370D11 02/23/11 SHUT DOWN TEST 710.00 4,153.50
2027995 03/23/11 02122 COUNTYOF SAN DIEGO 2011031109281 03/11/11 EMISSION &PERMIT FEES 7,708.00
2011031109276 03/11/11 EMISSION &PERMIT FEES 3,168.00
2011031101989 03/11/11 EMISSION &PERMIT FEES 985.00
2011031103231 03/11/11 EMISSION &PERMIT FEES 580.00
2011031109503 03/11/11 EMISSION &PERMIT FEES 530.00
2011031109291 03/11/11 EMISSION &PERMIT FEES 484.00
2011031109290 03/11/11 EMISSION &PERMIT FEES 319.00
2011031109277 03/11/11 EMISSION &PERMIT FEES 319.00
2011031109279 03/11/11 EMISSION &PERMIT FEES 319.00
2011031109288 03/11/11 EMISSION &PERMIT FEES 319.00
2011031109287 03/11/11 EMISSION &PERMIT FEES 319.00
2011031109286 03/11/11 EMISSION &PERMIT FEES 319.00
2011031109285 03/11/11 EMISSION &PERMIT FEES 319.00
2011031109576 03/11/11 EMISSION &PERMIT FEES 319.00
2011031104983 03/11/11 EMISSION &PERMIT FEES 319.00
2011031110565 03/11/11 EMISSION &PERMIT FEES 319.00
2011031109280 03/11/11 EMISSION &PERMIT FEES 309.00 16,954.00
2028084 03/30/11 00099 COUNTY OFSAN DIEGO -DPW 138670 02/28/11 EXCAVATION PERMITS 1,767.16 1,767.16
2027996 03/23/11 08387 COUNTY OFSD-LANDFILL MGMNT 201102 03/07/11 MICROTURBINEPOWERGENERATION 12,112.86 12,112.86
Page 5 of24
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 3/2/2011 TO 3/30/2011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2027697 03/02/11 11286 CPM PARTNERS INC 11017 02/02/11 SCHEDULINGSERVICES 4,270.00 4,270.00
2027997 03/23/11 11286 CPM PARTNERS INC 11025 03101/11 SCHEDULINGSERVICES 3,560.00 3,560.00
2027998 03/23/11 03098 CROUCHER,GARY D 70110211 02/28/11 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 108.12 108.12
2028085 03/30/11 06415 CUMMINS CAL PACIFIC LLC 00497837 03/09/11 EMISSIONS RETROFIT 3,120.30
00497749 03108/11 FILTERS SERVICE 784.71
00497750 03/08/11 REPAIR PART 189.29 4,094.30
2027815 03/09/11 00422 D & D TOOL &SUPPLY S3458580001 02/07/11 IRRITANT SMOKETUBES 48.39 48.39
2027999 03/23/11 00422 D & D TOOL &SUPPLY S3466670001 02/28/11 SAFETY GLOVES 244.75
S3474434001 03/02/11 MASK CERTIFICATION 136.49 381.24
2027763 03/09/11 12721 DAN SCOTT Ref002412481 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000169704 69.55 69.55
2027764 03/09/11 12730 DAN SMITH Ref002412490 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000173060 21.65 21.65
2027951 03/23/11 12768 DAN SMITH Ref002412704 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst #0000173035 5.87 5.87
2028000 03/23/11 11150 DARNELL &ASSOCIATES INC 024141A 03/01/11 TRAFFIC SERVICES 12,470.00 12,470.00
2027952 03/23/11 12747 DAVID BROWN Ref002412683 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst #0000144609 47.28 47.28
2027698 03/02/11 03606 DCSE INC 1003 01/23/11 INTEGRATION SERVICES 7,860.00 7,860.00
2028001 03/23/11 12771 DEBBIE STRAUB 250714995REF 03/21/11 CUSTOMER REFUND 259.61 259.61
2028002 03/23/11 02603 DELL MARKETING LP XF7TDWWC6 02/28/11 MONITORS 5,094.02 5,094.02
2027816 03/09/11 07680 DELTA HEALTH SYSTEMS P110223 03/02/11 HEALTH ADMINISTRATION 1,788.50 1,788.50
2027817 03/09/11 07680 DELTA HEALTH SYSTEMS IVC04569 01/31/11 HEALTH ADMINISTRATION 316.50 316.50
2027765 03/09/11 12695 DENNY HIRZEL Ref002412454 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000083489 61.75 61.75
2028003 03/23/11 03666 DENNY'S CONCRETE PUMPING 7024 03/02/11 CONCRETE PUMPING 450.00 450.00
2027699 03/02/11 03744 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 834127 02/07/11 FINGERPRINTING SERVICES 185.00 185.00
2027882 03/16/11 03744 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 838829 03104/11 FINGERPRINTING SERVICES 102.00 102.00
2027883 03/16/11 00319 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 301190311 03/09/11 CERTIFICATE RENEWAL 60.00 60.00
2028004 03/23/11 00319 DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH 1091090 01/21/11 RECYCLED WATER FEES #3790034 1,041.60 1,041.60
2027884 03/16/11 03225 DERAN GEAR INC 74253 02/16/11 REPAIR PART 37.85 37.85
Page 6 of24
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 3/2/2011 TO 3/30/2011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2028086 03/30/11 10338 DION AND SONS INC S209801 02/22/11 UNLEADED FUEL 15,423.05 15,423.05
2027885 03/16/11 03417 DIRECTV 1464118396 03/05/11 SATELLITE TV 18.00 18.00
2028087 03/30/11 03417 DIRECTV 14743580798 03/19/11 SATELLITE TV 7.00 7.00
2027818 03109/11 11155 DONNA MILLS 255100117REF11 03/08/11 CUSTOMER REFUND 234.04 234.04
2027766 03/09/11 12726 ED LANDSBERG Ref002412486 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000171824 60.15 60.15
2027767 03/09/11 12716 EDWARDTYSON Ref002412475 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000168461 62.50 62.50
2028005 03/23/11 06525 ELECTRIC MOTORSPECIALISTS INC 3895 02/25/11 BOX BUSHING 353.31 353.31
2028088 03/30/11 06525 ELECTRIC MOTORSPECIALISTS INC 3899 03/01/11 SCALE SHAFTS 384.00 384.00
2027953 03/23/11 12754 ELIZABETH BECKER Ref002412690 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst #0000162843 5.07 5.07
2028006 03/23/11 08023 EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SPECIALISTS 0051970lN 02/28/11 ADMINISTRATION FEES 570.00 570.00
2027700 03/02/11 03227 ENVIROMATRIXANALYTICAL INC 1020116 02107/11 LABORATORYSERVICES 380.00 380.00
2027819 03/09/11 03227 ENVIROMATRIXANALYTICAL INC 1020281 02/14/11 LABORATORYSERVICES 605.00 605.00
2027886 03/16/11 03227 ENVIROMATRIXANALYTICAL INC 1020396 02/22/11 LABORATORY SERVICES 245.00 245.00
2028007 03/23/11 03227 ENVIROMATRIXANALYTICAL INC 1020480 02/28/11 LABORATORY SERVICES 315.00 315.00
2028089 03/30/11 03227 ENVIROMATRIXANALYTICAL INC 1030145 03107/11 LABORATORY SERVICES 850.00 850.00
2028008 03/23/11 03757 FANDEL ENTERPRISES INC 1434 02/28/11 TELECOM SERVICES 8,101.00 8,101.00
2027768 03/09/11 12724 FAS-AHM UTILITIES LLC Ref002412484 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000171675 55.12 55.12
2027820 03/09/11 00645 FEDEX 741459307 03/04/11 MAIL SERVICES 5.52 5.52
2027821 03/09/11 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #1082 CM030194 CREDIT MEMO (97.88)
0368830 02/15/11 CLAVALVE PARTS 4,271.17
0370347 02/15/11 INVENTORY 3,515.52
0370346 02/16/11 INVENTORY 1,450.09
0368438 02/11/11 INVENTORY 581.38
0370109 02/15/11 INVENTORY 562.24
0370349 02/15/11 METERSUPPORTS 345.83
0370217 02/15/11 BLIND FLG 96.06
03684351 02/04/11 INVENTORY 39.95 10,764.36
2027887 03/16/11 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #1082 03701091 02/18/11 INVENTORY 4,317.38
0370813 02/23/11 INVENTORY 3,996.91
03702171 02/24/11 BLIND FLG 376.20
Page 7 of24
--------------------
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 31212011 TO 313012011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
0370410 02118111 INVENTORY 287.10 8,977.59
2028009 03123111 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #1082 03701092 03101111 INVENTORY 58.73 58.73
2028090 03130111 03546 FERGUSON WATERWORKS #1082 0371951 03110111 INVENTORY 4,581.27
0371953 03110111 INVENTORY 4,045.50
0370985 03104111 HYDRANTCAPS 2,501.25
0371952 03110111 INVENTORY 1,517.06
0371739 03110111 BOLTS &GASKETS 491.17
0371743 03/10/11 TRUCK TOOLS 435.00
0371807 03/10/11 TRUCK TOOLS 201.19 13,772.44
2028010 03/23/11 12187 FIRST AMERICAN DATATREE LLC 90034021 02/28/11 ONLINE MAPS 9900 99.00
2027701 03/02/11 04066 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES -SD 113753 02/10/11 COFFEE SUPPLIES 318.08 318.08
2028011 03123/11 04066 FIRST CHOICE SERVICES -SD 115350 02/25/11 COFFEE SUPPLIES 344.91 344.91
2027702 03/02111 00035 FISHER SCIENTIFIC 9741254 02/04/11 LABORATORY SUPPLIES 728.87 728.87
2027822 03/09/11 11962 FLEETWASH INC 3494330 02/11/11 VEHICLE WASH 32.70 32.70
2027888 03116/11 11962 FLEETWASH INC 3324292 07/23/10 VEHICLE WASH 511.92
3325417 07/30/10 VEHICLE WASH 249.48
3441958 12/03/10 VEHICLE WASH 204.92 966.32
2028091 03/30/11 12284 FORENSIC ENTOMOLOGY SERVICES 002789 03108/11 SCIENCE ADVISOR 4,000.00 4,000.00
2027703 03/02/11 01612 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2412299 03/03111 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 75.00 75.00
2027704 03102/11 02344 FRANCHISE TAXBOARD Ben2412295 03/03/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 150.00 150.00
2027889 03116111 01612 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2412613 03/17/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 115.00 115.00
2027890 03/16/11 02344 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2412609 03/17/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 150.00 150.00
2028092 03/30/11 01612 FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Ben2412946 03/31/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 165.00 165.00
2028093 03/30/11 02344 FRANCHISE TAXBOARD Ben2412948 03/31111 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 150.00 150.00
2027769 03/09/11 12727 FRANCISCO SILVA Ref002412487 03/08111 UB Refund Cst #0000172690 20.12 20.12
2027823 03/09/11 01327 FRANK &SON PAVING INC 0553A 02/02/11 ANNUAL PAVING 346.25 346.25
2028012 03/23/11 01327 FRANK &SON PAVING INC 0554 03/01/11 ANNUAL PAVING 10,098.20 10,098.20
2028013 03/23/11 07224 FRAZEE INDUSTRIES INC 587071 03103/11 HYDRANT PAINT 734.69
587070 03/03/11 PAINT SUPPLIES 43.54 778.23
Page 8 of24
~----~--_._--------~--~----
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 3/2/2011 TO 3/30/2011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2028094 03/30/11 03094 FULLCOURT PRESS 22178 03/08/11 BILL INSERT 1,739.83 1,739.83
2028014 03/23/11 06748 FULLER FORD 002790 03/21/11 PROCESS IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 6,405.00 6,405.00
2027705 03102/11 06291 GARCIA CALDERON &RUIZ LLP 4502 02/02/11 LEGAL SERVICES 32,776.30
4521 02/10/11 LEGAL SERVICES 3,538.17 36,314.47
2028095 03/30/11 10817 GEXPRO 580132227 03/09/11 CPU MODULES 17,295.73 17,295.73
2028096 03/30/11 03537 GHA TECHNOLOGIES INC 642621 03/02/11 ETHERNET DEVICES 1,600.80
642617 02/25/11 BATTERY FOR UPS 322.72 1,923.52
2028015 03/23/11 12008 GIERLICH-MITCHELL INC GC12836 02/14/11 WEAR STRIPS 3,494.40 3,494.40
2027770 03/09/11 12702 GIULIAHENDY Ref002412461 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000140854 135.45 135.45
2027706 03/02/11 00101 GRAINGERINC 9456967653 CREDITMEMO (174.47)
9448022112 01/27/11 TOOL REPLACEMENT 348.93
9456967646 02/08/11 WAREHOUSE SUPPLIES 313.02
9456967638 02/08/11 WAREHOUSE SUPPLIES 63.23
9456445353 02/07/11 TOOL REPLACEMENT 10.78 561.49
2027824 03/09/11 00101 GRAINGER INC 9460443436 02/11/11 WAREHOUSE PAINT 705.94
9462395840 02/14/11 MAINTENANCE LIGHTING 363.07
9460443410 02/11/11 MARKING PAINT 305.89
9460443428 02/11/11 STEP STOOL 87.56 1,462.46
2027891 03/16/11 00101 GRAINGER INC 9468996658 02/22/11 MINIATURE LAMPS 119.22 119.22
2028016 03/23/11 00101 GRAINGER INC 9476717930 03/03/11 REPAIR PARTS 353.40
9477332705 03/03/11 COPPER CUTTER 205.31 558.71
2028097 03/30/11 00101 GRAINGER INC 9482252476 03/09/11 REPAIR PARTS 1,061.37
9479522725 03/07/11 REPAIR PARTS 425.42 1,486.79
2027707 03/02/11 01576 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 952316596 02/07/11 CAMERA PROJECT 533.03 533.03
2027825 03/09/11 01576 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 952679037 CREDIT MEMO (524.25)
952429433 02/14/11 CAMERA PROJECT 533.03
952435035 02/14/11 CABLES 240.54
952435034 02/14/11 CABLES 198.94 448.26
2028017 03/23/11 02187 GREENSCAPE 2599 02101/11 LANDSCAPING SERVICES 6,090.00 6,090.00
2028018 03/23/11 03773 GTC SYSTEMS INC 31317 02/28/11 CITIRXSUPPORT 1,805.31 1,805.31
2027708 03/02/11 00174 HACH COMPANY 7103663 02/07/11 LABORATORY SUPPLIES 16.95 16.95
2027826 03/09/11 00174 HACH COMPANY 7112238 02/11/11 CL-17 ANALYZERS 7,292.13 7,292.13
Page 9 of 24
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 31212011 TO 3130/2011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2028019 03123111 00174 HACH COMPANY 7134075 02128111 TURBIDIMETER PARTS 1,004.37 1,004.37
2027892 03116111 02629 HANSON AGGREGATES INC 640057 02118111 AGGREGATES 240.75 24075
2028020 03123111 02629 HANSON AGGREGATES INC 640831 03101111 AGGREGATES 247.61 247.61
2027893 03116111 00201 HARRINGTON INDL PLASTICS LLC 00482612 02123/11 PVCFITIINGS 135.20 135.20
2027709 03/02111 06640 HD SUPPLY WATERWORKS LTD 1838639 02107/11 EXTERNAL TRANCEIVER 1,250.63 1,250.63
2027827 03109/11 08610 HENRY BROS ELECTRONICS INC 09090310 02/16111 ADDITIONAL SECURITY 8,462.57
SM32131 02111/11 ALARM MAINTENANCE 1,053.18 9,515.75
2028021 03123/11 08610 HENRY BROS ELECTRONICS INC SM32342 03102/11 ADDITIONAL FOB'S 805.84 805.84
2028098 03130/11 00713 HEWLETI-PACKARD COMPANY 49109406 03/09/11 FIBER CARDS 6,956.52 6,956.52
2028099 03130/11 06843 HI-TECHAIR CONDITIONING 22439 03/08/11 AC MAINTENANCE 650.00 65000
2027954 03/23111 12749 HOME REPO TOUR Ref002412685 03/22/11 U8 Refund Cst #0000159895 82.48 82.48
2027955 03123/11 12766 HOME REPO TOUR Ref002412702 03/22111 UB Refund Cst #0000172983 57.06 5706
2027956 03123/11 12756 HOME REPO TOURS Ref002412692 03122/11 UB Refund Cst #0000168414 44.57 44.57
2027894 03/16/11 12335 HP ENTERPRISE SERVICES LLC 66395978 02/23111 CONSULTANT SERVICES 24,561.09 24,561.09
2028100 03/30111 03743 HYDROTEX 589761 03108/11 OIL 1,495.04 1,495.04
2027828 03/09111 12688 IAPMO 002768 03/04111 BOOK 120.01 120.01
2027771 03109/11 12692 ICKERSOLLOA Ref002412451 03108/11 UB Refund Cst #0000045538 150.00 150.00
2028022 03123/11 08969 INFOSEND INC 48957 02/28/11 POSTAGE 13,997.23
48956 02/28/11 BILL PRINTING SERVICES 5,830.60
49046 03102111 INFOSEND EBPP 3,550.00 23,377.83
2028023 03/23/11 02372 INTERIOR PLANT SERVICE INC 37316 02128/11 PLANT SERVICES 186.00 186.00
2027829 03/09111 03250 INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC MGMT 002767 03/02111 REGISTRATION FEE 25.00 25.00
2027772 03/09111 12699 JANEANN GOLDSMITH-OLMSTED Ref002412458 03/08111 UB Refund Cst #0000124045 81.90 81.90
2027957 03/23/11 12753 JANET GOMEZ Ref002412689 03/22111 UB Refund Cst #0000162126 39.13 39.13
2027895 03/16111 03077 JANJ-KING OF CALIFORNIA INC SD002110207 02101111 JANITORIAL SERVICES 1,062.84 1,062.84
2027958 03/23111 12763 JASON MUNSTERTEIGER Ref002412699 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst#0000172543 53.62 53.62
Page 10 of24
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 31212011 TO 313012011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2027830 03/09/11 10563 JCI JONES CHEMICALS INC 498737 CREDIT MEMO (3,000.00)
498564 03/02111 CHLORINE 4,801.80 1,801.80
2027773 03/09/11 12729 JERRY MIRANDA Ref002412489 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst#0000172850 13.04 13.04
2027959 03/23/11 12751 JILLlKARI Ref002412687 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst#0000160635 37.02 37.02
2027960 03/23/11 12744 JOEL CLOUD Ref002412680 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst#0000086607 453.19 453.19
2027831 03/09/11 01735 JOHNSON,PAMELA 002762 03/01/11 SAFETY BOOTS 150.00 150.00
2027896 03/16/11 03172 JONES &STOKES ASSOCIATES INC 0077026 02/17/11 P1253 SAN MIGUEL HABITAT MGMT AREA 25,415.81
0077025 02/17/11 ENVIRONMENTALCONSULTING 850.05 26,265.86
2027774 03/09/11 12689 JOSE MONTES Ref002412447 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst#000001 0038 49.85 49.85
2027775 03/09/11 12698 JOSE RAMIREZ Ref002412457 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000120556 50.47 50.47
2028101 03/30/11 12772 JUAN NAVARRO 002804 03/23/11 EASEMENTACQUISITION 5,500.00 5,500.00
2027897 03/16/11 12639 KAPISH NORTH AMERICA LLC 37 02/22111 RECORDS INTERFACE 1,920.00 1,920.00
2027776 03/09/11 12697 KARINA ESCALONA Ref002412456 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000089196 19.68 19.68
2027710 03/02111 05126 KEN DAROIS 20110204 02104/11 WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT&SUPPORT 3,780.00 3,780.00
2027832 03/09/11 05126 KEN DAROIS 20110308 03/08/11 WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT &SUPPORT 4,500.00 4,500.00
2028102 03/30/11 10089 KENNEDY,ROBERT 002806 03/23/11 CERTIFICATE RENEWAL 125.00 125.00
2027961 03/23/11 12739 KIBROM GHEBRESELASSIE Ref002412674 03/22111 UB Refund Cst #0000024209 38.17 38.17
2028024 03/23/11 04996 KNOX ATTORNEY SERVICE INC 608211 02/28/11 DELIVERYSERVICES 177.00 177.00
2028025 03/23/11 03336 KREINBRING,THERESA 15820411 03/22/11 TRAVEL EXPENSE 388.30 388.30
2028026 03/23/11 06497 LAKESIDE LAND COMPANY 247280 03/02/11 ASPHALT 140.20
247215 03/01/11 ASPHALT 82.16 222.36
2027962 03/23/11 12742 LARRY BURT Ref002412677 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst #0000069788 42.15 42.15
2027777 03/09/11 12706 LARRY DANIEL Ref002412465 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000154718 33.49 33.49
2027833 03/09/11 03607 LEE &RO INC 83726 02/04/11 P2009 -DESIGN OF 36-INCH PIPELINE 5,272.40 5,272.40
2027898 03/16/11 03607 LEE&RO INC 84703 02118/11 INTERCONNECTION 71,145.04 71,145.04
2028027 03/23/11 03607 LEE&RO INC 83727 03/03/11 P2009 -DESIGN OF 36-INCH PIPELINE 654.60 654.60
Page 11 of24
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 3/2/2011 TO 3/30/2011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2028103 03/30/11 03607 LEE &RO INC 84704 03/03/11 INTERCONNECTION 61,961.96 61,961.96
2027778 03/09/11 12701 LEONARD TEYSSIER Ref002412460 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000139524 29.82 29.82
2028104 03/30/11 00491 LIGHTHOUSE INC,THE 0097339 03/07/11 LED LIGHTING 1,993.74 1,993.74
2028105 03/30/11 07294 LLERENAS,JESUS 002803 03/24/11 SAFETY SHOES 150.00 150.00
2027711 03/02/11 05220 LOGICALIS INTEGRATION SOLUTION S132538 01/31/11 T & M SUPPORT 1,320.00 1,320.00
2027899 03/16/11 05220 LOGICALIS INTEGRATION SOLUTION IN060509 02/24/11 SWITCHES 4,853.59 4,853.59
2028028 03/23/11 05220 LOGICALIS INTEGRATION SOLUTION S132972 02/28/11 CONFIGURATION ASSISTANCE 825.00 825.00
2027779 03/09/11 12709 LORI MOORE Ref002412468 03108/11 UB Refund Cst#0000160552 60.86 60.86
2028106 03/30/11 01054 LYNN'S LOCKSMITH SERVICE 271426 03/10/11 LOCKSMITH 252.43 252.43
2028029 03/23/11 07591 MA,DONGXING 17470211 03/03/11 TRAVEL EXPENSE 369.34 369.34
2027780 03/09/11 12714 MANALO REALTY Ref002412473 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000163416 6.53 6.53
2027781 03/09/11 12719 MANALO REALTY Ref002412478 03108/11 UB Refund Cst #0000169133 21.13 21.13
2027782 03/09/11 12732 MANALO REALTY Ref002412492 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000173499 42.32 42.32
2028030 03/23/11 00628 MANHATTAN NATIONAL LIFE 002791 03/17/11 VOLUNTARY LIFE INSURANCE 314.98 314.98
2027963 03/23/11 12738 MARIA LOPEZ Ref002412673 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst #0000002573 75.00 75.00
2028031 03/23/11 05862 MARINE SERVICES COMMERCIAL M16037 03101111 VALVE REPAIR 110.00 110.00
2028032 03/23/11 02902 MARSTON+MARSTONINC 20113 03102/11 PUBLIC RELATIONS 4,132.50 4,132.50
2027964 03/23/11 12743 MARYBETH CHILDS Ref002412679 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst #0000085765 32.18 32.18
2027900 03/16/11 05329 MASTER METER INC 01811451N 02/24/11 INVENTORY 122,813.55 122,813.55
2027901 03/16/11 02882 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC 00616341N 02/23/11 REPROGRAPHICS SVCS 44.86 44.86
2028107 03/30/11 02882 MAYER REPROGRAPHICS INC 00619831N 03/08/11 REPROGRAPHICS SVCS 1,331.03
00619581N 03/07/11 REPROGRAPHICS SVCS 117.32
0061960lN 03/07/11 REPROGRAPHICS SVCS 106.03 1,554.38
2027712 03/02/11 00282 MCGRAW-HILLCONSTRUCTIONIENR 002758 02/25/11 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL 199.00 199.00
2027713 03/02/11 01183 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLYCO 76916867 02/07/11 48"LOUVER 456.96
76921387 02/07/11 WAREHOUSESUPPLIES 267.82
Page 12 of24
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 3/2/2011 TO 3/30/2011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
77314803 02/10/11 PUMP PARTS 102.96 827.74
2027834 03/09/11 01183 MCMASTER-CARRSUPPLY CO 77829995 02/16/11 GAUGES 776.77
77540875 02/14/11 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 157.66
77969481 02/17/11 GAUGES 126.03 1,060.46
2027902 03/16/11 01183 MCMASTER-CARRSUPPLY CO 78400959 02/23/11 STATIONARY SHELVING 813.63 813.63
2028033 03/23/11 01183 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 78978840 03/01/11 PUMP PARTS 128.29 128.29
2028108 03/30/11 01183 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO 79703411 03/09/11 REPAIR PARTS 108.00
79682257 03/09/11 REPAIR PARTS 762.11 870.11
2027714 03/02/11 12685 MCMILLIN -SAN MIGUEL RANCH 002752 02/24/11 W/O REFUND D0032-010106 5,998.16 5,998.16
2027965 03/23/11 12760 MEGAN MCGREGOR Ref002412696 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst #0000171657 43.25 43.25
2027966 03/23/11 12741 MICHAEL CHIPPERFIELD Ref002412676 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst #0000048778 189.61 189.61
2027967 03/23/11 12750 MICHELLE JOHNSON Ref002412686 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst #0000160031 43.25 43.25
2027968 03/23/11 12758 MIGUEL MARTINEZ Ref002412694 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst #0000168855 15.51 15.51
2027715 03/02/11 02835 MIL-RAM TECHNOLOGY INC 984451 02/10/11 AMMONIA SENSORS 290.00 290.00
2027903 03/16/11 01158 MIRAMAR TRUCK BODY&EQUIPMENT 61430 02/24/11 BODY REPAIR 940.29 940.29
2028109 03/30/11 00887 MIRAMAR TRUCK CENTER-SAN DIEGO 274841 03/09/11 REPAIR PART 262.69 262.69
2027904 03/16/11 00237 MISSION JANITORIAL &ABRASIVE 24559400 02/23/11 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 767.54 767.54
2027969 03/23/11 12748 MT CALVARY PENTECOSTALCHURCH Ref002412684 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst #0000144968 16.47 16.47
2027783 03/09/11 12733 MTM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT Ref002412493 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000173730 24.38 24.38
2027905 03/16/11 03623 MWH AMERICAS INC 1384081 02/09/11 RWCWRF UPGRADE 103,262.57 103,262.57
2028110 03/30/11 03623 MWH AMERICAS INC 1388445 02/28/11 RWCWRF UPGRADE 78,787.76 78,787.76
2027716 03/02/11 03523 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPENSATION Ben2412287 03/03/11 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 10,431.40 10,431.40
2027906 03/16/11 03523 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPENSATION Ben2412601 03/17/11 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 9,818.43 9,818.43
2028111 03/30/11 03523 NATIONAL DEFERRED COMPENSATION Ben2412938 03/31/11 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 9,822.75 9,822.75
2028034 03/23/11 09884 NATIONAL SAFETY COMPLIANCE INC 48898 02/28/11 RANDOM DRUG TESTING 442.54 442.54
2027835 03/09/11 12275 NEC CORPORATION OF AMERICA MCOOOOO11179 02/14/11 TELECOMMUNICATIONS MAINTENANCE 18,941.75 18,941.75
Page 13 of24
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 3/2/2011 TO 3/30/2011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2028035 03/23/11 03135 NETWORKS 2000 13398 03/01/11 CARE PACK 1,191.21 1,191.21
2028036 03/23/11 12687 NEW HORIZONS 1336065 02/28/11 EXCEL TRAINING 295.00 295.00
2027717 03102/11 05494 NEXTEL OF CALIFORNIA INC 901500243053 02/12/11 AIRTRAK 3,678.60 3,678.60
2028037 03/23/11 03517 NOBEL SYSTEMS 11620 02/28/11 DATA CAPTURE 10,000.00 10,000.00
2027836 03/09/11 08656 NORTH STATE ENVIRONMENTAL 202143 02/14/11 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 411.33 411.33
2027784 03109/11 12718 OAKTREE REALTY Ref002412477 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000168877 66.65 66.65
2027907 03/16/11 02867 OCE 987355420 01/05/11 PLOTTER REPAIR 405.00 405.00
2027718 03/02/11 00510 OFFICE DEPOT INC 551333404001 02/08/11 PRINTER TONER 148.25
551476409001 02/09/11 OFFICE SUPPLIES 73.01
551476412001 02/10/11 OFFICE SUPPLIES 10.71 231.97
2027837 03/09/11 00510 OFFICE DEPOT INC 551475702001 02/11/11 OFFICE SUPPLIES 99.08
552611710001 02/17/11 SUPPLIES 24.77 123.85
2027908 03/16/11 00510 OFFICE DEPOT INC 552725383001 02/21/11 TONER CARTRIDGE 114.02
553210491001 02/23/11 OFFICE SUPPLIES 69.78 183.80
2028038 03/23/11 00510 OFFICE DEPOT INC 553928088001 03/01/11 OFFICE SUPPLIES 519.40
553482715001 02/25/11 DVD+R DL 145.07
553711411001 02/28/11 OFFICE SUPPLIES 100.79
554293562001 03103/11 OFFICE SUPPLIES 65.47
553917475001 03/01/11 SUPPLIES 52.27 883.00
2027719 03/02/11 03149 ON SITE LASER LLC 45357 02/09/11 PRINTER REPAIR 172.31 172.31
2027785 03/09/11 12728 OSMON HOMES LLC Ref002412488 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000172713 31.46 31.46
2028039 03/23/11 02334 OTAYLANDFILL 010605 02/28/11 WASTE DISPOSAL 359.65 359.65
2027720 03/02/11 03101 OTAY WATER DISTRICT Ben2412289 03/03/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION -ASSN DUES 742.00 742.00
2027909 03/16/11 03101 OTAY WATER DISTRICT Ben2412603 03/17/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION -ASSN DUES 735.00 735.00
2028112 03/30/11 03101 OTAY WATER DISTRICT Ben2412940 03/31/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION -ASSN DUES 749.00 749.00
2027910 03/16/11 03780 OWEN,DOUGLAS WESTLEY 002784 03/09/11 COMPUTER LOAN 1,175.50 1,175.50
2027721 03/02/11 01002 PACIFIC PIPELINE SUPPLY 144303 02104/11 INVENTORY 3,800.81
144158 02104/11 INVENTORY 288.84 4,089.65
2027838 03109/11 01002 PACIFIC PIPELINE SUPPLY 144907 02/16/11 INVENTORY 2,127.15
143938 02/16/11 INVENTORY 1,401.99 3,529.14
Page 14 of24
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 3/2/2011 TO 3/30/2011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2028040 03/23/11 01002 PACIFIC PIPELINE SUPPLY 144924 02/25/11 INVENTORY 1,807.23 1,807.23
2027839 03/09/11 03017 PACIFIC SAFETY COUNCIL 67925 02/17/11 SAFETY CLASS 237.00 237.00
2028113 03/30/11 03017 PACIFIC SAFETY COUNCIL 67970 02/28/11 REFRESHER TRAINING 49.00 49.00
2027911 03/16/11 07737 PARADISE CANYON SYSTEMS INC 022011916 02/18/11 TRIM SERVICES 4,961.25 4,961.25
2027786 03109/11 12694 PATRICIA ETTER Ref002412453 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst#0000078962 11.13 11.13
2027970 03/23/11 12745 PATRICK CAMERON Ref002412681 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst #0000089393 68.70 68.70
2027971 03/23/11 12533 PAUL III CORRIERE Ref002412678 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst #0000080021 130.00 130.00
2028041 03/23/11 05497 PAYPAL INC 10781176 02/28/11 PAYMENT SERVICES 54.10 54.10
2027840 03/09/11 03308 PBS&J 1102579 02/11/11 WATER MANAGEMENT 5,597.50 5,597.50
2028042 03/23/11 03308 PBS&J 1103976 02/25/11 HYDRAULIC MODELING 2,855.00 2,855.00
2028043 03/23/11 03649 PECK'S HEAVY FRICTION INC 213686 03/02/11 FILTER SERVICE 380.63
213576 02/25/11 REPAIR PARTS 124.80 505.43
2027912 03/16/11 08398 PEERLESS MATERIALS COMPANY 15847 02/24/11 WIPING RAGS 375.19 375.19
2027722 03/02/11 00227 PELL MELL SUPPLY 50949 02/09/11 ALLTHREAD 178.31 178.31
2027841 03/09/11 00227 PELL MELL SUPPLY 51032 02/11/11 BOLTS 1,315.10 1,315.10
2027913 03/16/11 03199 PERFORMANCE SPECIALTIES 28743 02/04/11 VEHICLE REPAIRS/SMOGS 274.98
28803 02/07/11 VEHICLE REPAIRS/SMOGS 58.25
28804 02/07/11 VEHICLE REPAIRS/SMOGS 58.25
28805 02/07/11 VEHICLE REPAIRS/SMOGS 58.25
28806 02/07/11 VEHICLE REPAIRS/SMOGS 58.25
28807 02/07/11 VEHICLE REPAIRS/SMOGS 58.25
28808 02/07/11 VEHICLE REPAIRS/SMOGS 58.25
28809 02/07/11 VEHICLE REPAIRS/SMOGS 58.25 682.73
2028114 03/30/11 03199 PERFORMANCE SPECIALTIES 28364 11/29/10 SMOG VEHICLES 50.00
28442 12/07/10 SMOG VEHICLES 50.00
28374 11/29/10 SMOG VEHICLES 50.00
28366 11/29/10 SMOG VEHICLES 50.00
28431 12/06/10 SMOG VEHICLES 50.00
28360 11/29/10 SMOG VEHICLES 50.00
28416 12/03/10 SMOG VEHICLES 50.00
28348 12/08/10 SMOG VEHICLES 50.00
28453 12/08/10 SMOG VEHICLES 50.00
28391 12/01/10 SMOG VEHICLES 50.00
Page 15 of24
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 3/2/2011 TO 3/30/2011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
28389 11/30/10 SMOG VEHICLES 50.00
28409 12/03/10 SMOG VEHICLES 50.00
28407 12/03/10 SMOG VEHICLES 50.00
28398 12/08/10 SMOG VEHICLES 50.00
28375 11/29/10 SMOG VEHICLES 50.00
28435 12/06/10 SMOG VEHICLES 50.00
28392 12/01/10 SMOG VEHICLES 50.00
28447 12/08/10 SMOG VEHICLES 50.00 900.00
2027723 03/02/11 00137 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN 002756 03/01/11 PETTYCASH 254.13 254.13
2028115 03/30/11 00137 PETTY CASH CUSTODIAN 002813 03/29/11 PETTYCASH 303.17 303.17
2027914 03/16/11 03351 POSADA,ROD 002783 03/08/11 COMPUTER LOAN 660.49 660.49
2027915 03/16/11 05499 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION INC 38906051 02/20/11 BOTTLE RENTAL 530.70 530.70
2027724 03/02/11 01733 PRICE TRONCONE &12341 02/11/11 SITE RENTAL 3,930.00 3,930.00
2027842 03/09/11 07346 PRIME ELECTRICALSERVICES INC 9182 02/16/11 SURVEILLANCE 4,505.00 4,505.00
2028044 03/23/11 10662 PROFESSIONAL MAINTENANCE 80150 02/01/11 JANITORIAL SERVICES 2,675.00 2,675.00
2027725 03/02/11 06641 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 30160907 02/10/11 UNIFORMS 322.22
30160906 02/10/11 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 176.83
30160908 02/10/11 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 158.90
30160263 02/08/11 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 103.91
30160909 02/10/11 UNIFORMS 76.75
30160262 02/08/11 UNIFORMS 54.25 892.86
2027843 03/09/11 06641 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 30162416 02/17/11 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 399.72
30162431 02/17/11 UNIFORMS 322.22
30162430 02/17/11 MATS,TOWELS&SUPPLIES 176.83
30162432 02/17/11 MATS,TOWELS&SUPPLIES 158.90
30161812 02/15/11 MATS,TOWELS&SUPPLIES 103.91
30162433 02/17/11 UNIFORMS 66.75
30161811 02/15/11 UNIFORMS 54.25 1,282.58
2027916 03/16/11 06641 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 30163987 02/24/11 UNIFORMS 322.22
30163986 02/24/11 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 176.83
30163988 02/24/11 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 158.90
30163352 02/22/11 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 103.91
30163989 02/24/11 UNIFORMS 58.79
30163351 02/22/11 UNIFORMS 55.33
31002393 01/11/11 UNIFORMS 38.06 914.04
2028045 03/23/11 06641 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 30165529 03/03/11 UNIFORMS 322.22
30165528 03/03/11 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 176.83
30165530 03/03/11 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 158.90
Page 16of24
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2027682THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 3/2/2011 TO 3/30/2011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
30164900 03/01/11 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 103.91
30165531 03/03/11 UNIFORMS 54.79
30164899 03/01/11 UNIFORMS 54.25 870.90
2028116 03/30/11 06641 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 30167073 03/10/11 UNIFORMS 318.22
30167072 03/10/11 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 176.83
30167074 03/10/11 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 158.90
30166437 03/08/11 MATS,TOWELS &SUPPLIES 103.91
30167075 03/10/11 UNIFORMS 54.79
30166436 03/08/11 UNIFORMS 54.25 866.90
2027844 03/09/11 00078 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT Ben2412283 03/03/11 PERS CONTRIBUTION 143,513.63 143,513.63
2028046 03/23/11 00078 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT Ben2412597 03/17/11 PERS CONTRIBUTION 141,602.59 141,602.59
2027845 03109/11 10294 QWIKPRINTS 11601445 03/01/11 FINGERPRINTING SERVICES 20.00 20.00
2027846 03/09/11 01342 R J SAFETYSUPPLY CO INC 28343903 02/14/11 SAFETY SUPPLIES 38.01 38.01
2027917 03/16/11 12230 RAHN CONSERVATION CONSULTING RCC111a 01/31/11 ADVISOR REVIEW 1,000.00 1,000.00
2027787 03/09/11 12691 RANDALL HANSEN Ref002412449 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst#0000026451 93.03 93.03
2028047 03/23/11 00021 RCP BLOCK &BRICK INC 4346528 03/02111 CONCRETE 904.04 904.04
2028117 03/30/11 01722 ROO EQUIPMENT CO P55489 03/10/11 REPAIR PARTS 221.27 221.27
2027788 03/09/11 12658 REALHOME SERVICES &SOLUTIONS Ref002412480 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000169681 65.21 65.21
2027918 03/16/11 01890 RECON 42814 02123111 P1253 -PREPARATION OFTHE SUBAREA PLAN 5,798.25 5,798.25
2027972 03/23/11 12764 REO SALES AND ASSOCIATES Ref002412700 03/22111 UB Refund Cst #0000172797 52.68 52.68
2027973 03/23/11 12770 REO SALES AND ASSOCIATES Ref002412706 03/22111 UB Refund Cst #0000174206 49.54 49.54
2027726 03/02111 12634 RHINO LOCATORSUPPLIES 37600 02/09/11 SURVEY TOOL 135.44 135.44
2028048 03/23/11 12017 RICK ALEXANDER COMPANY,THE 002773 02/28/11 CONSULTING SERVICES 1,510.00 1,510.00
2027919 03/16/11 00521 RICK POST WELDING&8974 02/24/11 WELDING SERVICES 720.00 720.00
2028049 03/23/11 04542 ROBAK,MARK 70140111 01/31/11 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 16.83
70140211 02/28/11 MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT 16.32 33.15
2027974 03/23/11 12752 ROBERTO MARTINEZ Ref002412688 03/22/11 US Refund Cst #0000160735 57.92 57.92
2027920 03/16/11 12735 RODRIGUEZ,SONIA 002787 03/15/11 COMPUTER LOAN 2,245.45 2,245.45
2028118 03/30/11 06412 ROMERO.TANYA 002805 03/22/11 TUITION 261.15 261.15
Page 17 of 24
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FORCHECKS2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 3/2/2011 TO 3/30/2011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2027975 03/23/11 12765 RONALD JOHNIKIN Ref002412701 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst #0000172911 62.62 62.62
2027789 03/09/11 12708 ROSALIE OLEGARIO Ref002412467 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000160229 101.34 101.34
2027790 03/09/11 12722 RUTH MCCARTNEY Ref002412482 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000169780 24.35 24.35
2027921 03/16/11 00217 RW LITTLE CO INC 101196 02/23/11 POWDER COATING 180.00 180.00
2028119 03/30/11 05130 SAFARI MICRO INC 198050 03/09/11 BACKUPTAPES 2,827.50 2,827.50
2027791 03/09/11 12717 SALINA OLIVIERI Ref002412476 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000168657 34.50 34.50
2027727 03/02/11 11596 SAN DIEGO CONSTRUCTION WELDING 7870 02/10/11 GENERAL WELDING 1,025.00
7862 02/04/11 WELDING 340.00
7871 02/10/11 GENERAL WELDING 340.00 1,705.00
2028050 03/23/11 11596 SAN DIEGO CONSTRUCTION WELDING 7901 02/28/11 GENERAL WELDING 3,200.00 3,200.00
2028120 03/30/11 11596 SAN DIEGO CONSTRUCTION WELDING 7915 03/10/11 GENERAL WELDING 575.00 575.00
2027728 03/02/11 02586 SAN DIEGOCOUNTY ASSESSOR 2010198 02/07/10 ASSESSOR DATA 125.00 125.00
2027847 03/09/11 02586 SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSESSOR 2010221 03/07/10 ASSESSOR DATA 125.00 125.00
2028121 03/30/11 00003 SAN DIEGO COUNTY WATER 0000000274 03/07/11 CONSERVATION PROGRAMS 5,381.15 5,381.15
2027729 03/02/11 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS&ELECTRIC 002740 02/04/11 UTILITY EXPENSES 4,710.64
002741 02/17/11 UTILITY EXPENSES 58.40 4,769.04
2027848 03/09/11 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS&ELECTRIC 002766 02/28/11 UTILITY EXPENSES 39,926.13
002763 02/25/11 UTILITY EXPENSES 34,721.15
002764 02/18/11 UTILITY EXPENSES 15,462.51
002765 02/24/11 UTILITY EXPENSES 130.47 90,240.26
2027922 03/16/11 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS &ELECTRIC 002776 03/08/11 UTILITY EXPENSES 11,544.80 11,544.80
2028051 03/23/11 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS &ELECTRIC 002774 03/07/11 UTILITY EXPENSES 52,944.75
002795 02/28/11 UTILITY EXPENSES 1,256.35 54,201.10
2028122 03/30/11 00121 SAN DIEGO GAS &ELECTRIC 002798 03/22/11 UTILITY EXPENSES 3,545.49 3,545.49
2027792 03/09/11 12720 SAN DIEGO REALTY Ref002412479 03108/11 UB Refund Cst #0000169340 13.35 13.35
2027793 03/09/11 12703 SAN DIEGO REO Ref002412462 03108/11 UB Refund Cst #0000140910 75.00 75.00
2027794 03/09/11 12707 SANDAND SEA REALTY Ref002412466 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000156439 27.04 27.04
2027730 03/02/11 05321 SCHIFF ASSOCIATES 06211 01/31/11 CATHODIC PROTECTION 18,681.06 18,681.06
Page 18 of24
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 3/2/2011 TO 3/30/2011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2028123 03/30/11 05321 SCHIFF ASSOCIATES 06334 02/26/11 CATHODIC PROTECTION 15,912.25 15,912.25
2028052 03/23/11 12333 SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORPORATION 8102821245 02/01/11 ELEVATOR MAINTENANCE 430.00 430.00
2027795 03/09/11 12715 SO SEAPORT LP Ref002412474 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000163546 204.34 204.34
2027796 03/09/11 12711 SEAN PAYNE Ref002412470 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000160870 36.54 36.54
2027797 03/09/11 12725 SHARON BOYER Ref002412485 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000171743 36.97 36.97
2027849 03/09/11 01651 SHARP REES-STEALY MEDICAL CTRS 233 02/19/11 PRE-PLACEMENT PHYSICAL 113.00 113.00
2027850 03/09/11 08031 SHARP WEIGHT MANAGEMENT &409 03/01/11 WELLNESS WORKSHOP 245.00 245.00
2027731 03/02/11 12138 SHELBURNE SHERR COURT 111570 01/18/11 COpy OF TRANSCRIPT 696.71
111344 12/25/10 COpy OFTRANSCRIPT 43886 1,135.57
2027732 03/02/11 05983 SIEMENS WATER TECHNOLOGIES 3288124 02/10/11 CL2GAS REGULATORS 3,912.83
3286192 02/08/11 AMMONIA SENSORS 3,801.24
3291049 02/03/11 ACUTEC35 3,041.10
3285018 02/07/11 CL2GAS PARTS 770.37 11,525.54
2027923 03/16/11 05983 SIEMENS WATER TECHNOLOGIES 3299657 02/23/11 ENCORE700 PARTS 2,252.05 2,252.05
2028053 03/23/11 05983 SIEMENS WATER TECHNOLOGIES 4705945 03/01/11 PROCESSING TANK 120.00 120.00
2028054 03/23/11 12281 SIR SPEEDY PRINTING 45631 02/28/11 CARD SHELLS 214.55
45632 02/26/11 BUSINESS CARDS 38.99 253.54
2027733 03/02/11 00258 SLOAN ELECTRIC COMPANY 15751 12/21/10 VIBRATION TESTING 906.00 906.00
2028124 03/30/11 03439 SO CAL ALLIANCE OF PUBLICLY 002807 03/23/11 MEMBERSHIP DUES 538.00 538.00
2027924 03/16/11 03592 SOFTCHOICE CORPORATION 2615615 02/23/11 LICENSE RENEWAL 269.63 269.63
2028055 03/23/11 03103 SOUTHCOAST HEATING &C45488 02/11/11 AC MAINTENANCE 1,068.00 1,068.00
2027976 03/23/11 12755 SOUTHLAND PAVING INC Ref002412691 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst#0000162917 735.22 735.22
2027925 03/16/11 06537 SOUTHLAND TECHNOLOGY SI40284 02/24/11 BOARD EQUIPMENT 30,084.59 30,084.59
2028125 03/30/11 02594 SOUTHWESTERN COLLEGE OWD031411 03/28/11 ANNUAL SPONSORSHIP 6,000.00 6,000.00
2027734 03/02/11 03760 SPANKY'S PORTABLE SERVICES INC 870473 02/03/11 TOILET RENTAL 98.25 98.25
2027851 03/09/11 03760 SPANKY'S PORTABLE SERVICES INC 871139 02/11/11 TOILET RENTAL 80.06
871140 02/11/11 TOILET RENTAL 80.06
871138 02/11/11 TOILET RENTAL 80.06
Page 19 of24
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 3/2/2011 TO 3/30/2011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
871434 02/14/11 TOILET RENTAL 80.06 320.24
2027926 03/16/11 03760 SPANKY'S PORTABLE SERVICES INC 872114 02/23/11 TOILET RENTAL 80.06 80.06
2028126 03/30/11 03760 SPANKY'S PORTABLE SERVICES INC 872919 03/03/11 TOILET RENTAL 98.25 98.25
2027735 03/02/11 00590 SPECIALTY SEALS &ACCESSORIES 28833 02/01/11 MECHSEAL 1,037.48 1,037.48
2027977 03/23/11 12762 SSFT HOLDINGS,LLC Ref002412698 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst #0000172413 289.20 289.20
2027736 03/02/11 02354 STANDARD ELECTRONICS 14955 02/07/11 ALARM SYSTEM 1,472.50 1,472.50
2027852 03/09/11 02354 STANDARD ELECTRONICS 14923 01/28/11 SECURITYSYSTEM 538.75
14933 02/02/11 SECURITYSYSTEM 365.75
14925 01/28/11 SECURITYSYSTEM 365.75
14924 01/28/11 SECURITYSYSTEM 323.25 1,593.50
2027853 03/09/11 00320 STANDARD REGISTER COMPANY 5458552 02/14/11 CHECK PRINTER 3,425.63 3,425.63
2027737 03/02/11 06281 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2412303 03/03/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 264.00 264.00
2027738 03102/11 06299 STATE DISBURSEMENTUNIT Ben2412293 03/03/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 237.69 237.69
2027739 03/02/11 06303 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2412297 03/03/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 696.46 696.46
2027927 03/16/11 06281 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2412617 03/17/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 264.00 264.00
2027928 03/16/11 06299 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2412607 03/17/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 237.69 237.69
2027929 03/16/11 06303 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2412611 03/17/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 802.15 802.15
2028127 03/30/11 06281 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2412954 03/31/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 679.38 679.38
2028128 03/30/11 06299 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2412944 03/31/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 237.69 237.69
2028129 03/30/11 06303 STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT Ben2412950 03/31/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 802.15 802.15
2027740 03/02/11 02261 STATE STREET BANK &TRUST CO Ben2412285 03/03/11 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 6,489.31 6,489.31
2027930 03/16/11 02261 STATE STREET BANK &TRUST CO Ben2412599 03/17/11 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 6,489.31 6,489.31
2028130 03/30/11 02261 STATE STREET BANK &TRUST CO Ben2412936 03/31/11 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 6,439.31 6,439.31
2028131 03/30/11 05755 STATE WATERRESOURCES 002800 03/16/11 APPLICATION FEE 250.00 250.00
2027741 03/02/11 11749 STEPHEN V MCCUE ESQ 002759 02/17/11 LEGAL SERVICES 20,755.00 20,755.00
2027931 03/16/11 11749 STEPHEN V MCCUE ESQ 002779 03/03/11 LEGAL SERVICES 14,892.50 14,892.50
Page 20 of24
---------------------_._-_._------------"------
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 3/2/2011 TO 3/30/2011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2028132 03/30/11 11749 STEPHEN V MCCUE ESQ 002809 03/21/11 LEGAL SERVICES 21,542.50 21,542.50
2027798 03/09/11 12693 STEWART FIEHLER Ref002412452 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000050831 207.52 207.52
2028133 03/30/11 12566 SUMMITTRUCK EQUIPMENT STE5992 02/10/11 REPLACEMENT TRUCK 127,975.00 127,975.00
2028134 03/30/11 00408 SWEETWATERAUTHORITY 201111041 03/17/11 ORTHOPHOTOGRAPHY 68,000.00 68,000.00
2028135 03/30/11 08399 SWINERTON MANAGEMENT 0806900213 03/01/11 JAMACHA PIPELINE PROJECT 6,428.00 6,428.00
2027742 03/02/11 02987 T M PEMBERTON 28443 02/10/11 CEMENT 416.21 416.21
2027854 03/09/11 02987 T M PEMBERTON 28431 02/02/11 CEMENT 532.01 532.01
2028136 03/30/11 02987 T M PEMBERTON 28464 03/02/11 CEMENT 421.49 421.49
2027932 03/16/11 02188 TALLEY COMMUNICATIONS 10055791 02/24/11 TALLEY CABLES 3,469.50 3,469.50
2027933 03/16/11 02799 TARULLI TIRE INC -SAN DIEGO 20046280 02/21/11 TIRE SERVICE 1,032.42
20046281 02/21/11 TIRE SERVICE 30.00
20046111 01/31/11 TIRE SERVICE 24.00
20046112 01/31/11 TIRE SERVICE 24.00
20046181 02/08/11 TIRE SERVICE 21.53
20046247 02/16/11 TIRE SERVICE 21.53 1,153.48
2028056 03/23/11 02799 TARULLI TIRE INC -SAN DIEGO 20046366 02/28/11 TIRE SERVICE 372.80
20046312 03/01/11 TIRE SERVICE 121.73 494.53
2028137 03/30/11 02799 TARULLI TIRE INC -SAN DIEGO 20046442 03/09/11 TIRE SERVICE 21.53 21.53
2027799 03/09/11 12712 TEAM BOURDA Ref002412471 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000163113 17.56 17.56
2027978 03/23/11 12769 TEAM BOURDA Ref002412705 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst#0000173877 54.25 54.25
2027979 03/23/11 12767 TEAM TOWNSEND INC Ref002412703 03/22/11 UB Refund Cst#0000172984 26.40 26.40
2028138 03/30/11 02376 TECHKNOWSION INC 2304 03/08/11 WIN911 RENEWALS 1,649.13 1,649.13
2027934 03/16/11 11754 TECHNOLOGYASSOCIATES K30800132 12/17/10 CONSULTING SERVICES 4,511.25 4,511.25
2027800 03/09/11 12700 TERESA PEREZ Ref002412459 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst#0000125313 73.74 73.74
2028139 03/30/11 06847 THIRD AVENUE VILLAGE ASSN 002814 03/29/11 SPACE RENTAL 150.00 150.00
2027801 03/09/11 12734 THOMAS PIGEON Ref002412494 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst#0000174499 1,745.74 1,745.74
2027743 03/02/11 11289 TLC STAFFING IVC050000044894 02/11/11 CWA INTERN 540.00
IVC050000044963 02/18/11 CWAINTERN 540.00 1,080.00
Page 21 of24
------------------------
OTAY WATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 31212011 TO 313012011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2027855 03/09/11 11289 TLC STAFFING IVC050000045110 03/04/11 CWAINTERN 324.00
IVC050000045036 02125111 CWAINTERN 202.50 526.50
2028140 03130/11 11289 TLC STAFFING IVC050000045247 03/18/11 CWA INTERN 1,080.00
IVC050000045176 03/11/11 CWAINTERN 540.00 1,620.00
2027935 03/16111 04977 T-MOBILE 4150860450311 03105/11 CELL PHONE SERVICES 63.97 63.97
2027802 03/09/11 12391 TONY CALIGER Ref002412450 03/08/11 UB Refund Cst #0000039259 49.14 49.14
2027744 03102/11 12570 TRI TECH REPROGRAPHICS 117554 02/04/11 PHOTOCOPYING SERVICES 63.82 63.82
2027745 03102/11 12682 TRIAD PARTNERS 002749 02/24111 WIO REFUND D0311-XX6488 1,140.51 1,140.51
2028057 03/23/11 00427 UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT OF 220110461 03/01/11 UNDERGROUNDALERTS 301.50 301.50
2027746 03/02/11 03563 UNDERGROUND UTILITIES INC 027189 02117111 WATER METER BOX CLEANOUT MAINTENANCE 1,023.75 1,023.75
2027747 03/02/11 12681 UNION BANK 002748 02/24/11 WIO REFUND D0371-XX6413 1,060.45 1,060.45
2027856 03109/11 08262 UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST INC 92083095001 02/15/11 CONCRETE 140.29 140.29
2027936 03/16111 08262 UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST INC 92215127001 02/24/11 CONCRETE 160.95 160.95
2028141 03/30111 08262 UNITED RENTALS NORTHWEST INC 92383220001 03108/11 CONCRETE 224.30
92339524001 03/04111 CONCRETE 119.63 343.93
2027748 03/02/11 05417 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT Ben2412301 03103111 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 100.00 100.00
2027937 03/16/11 05417 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT Ben2412615 03/17/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 100.00 100.00
2028142 03/30/11 05417 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT Ben2412952 03/31/11 PAYROLL DEDUCTION 100.00 100.00
2027938 03116111 00350 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 104339510311 02/23/11 REIMBURSE POSTAGE MACHINE 2,100.00 2,100.00
2028143 03/30/11 07662 UNITEDHEALTHCARE SPECIALTY 110890000028 03/30/11 BASIC L1FEIAD&D &SUPP LIFE INS 5,784.45 5,784.45
2028144 03/30/11 03212 UNUM LIFE INSURANCE Ben2412930 03/31/11 CONTRIBUTION TO LTO 8,706.65 8,706.65
2027749 03/02/11 07674 US BANKCORPORATE PAYMENT 002755 02/22/11 DISTRICT EXPENSES 199.36 199.36
2027939 03/16/11 07674 US BANKCORPORATE PAYMENT 002778 02122/11 DISTRICT EXPENSES 2,921.36 2,921.36
2028058 03/23/11 07674 US BANKCORPORATE PAYMENT 002794 12/22/10 DISTRICT EXPENSES 10,693.82
002792 02122/11 DISTRICT EXPENSES 9,120.45 19,814.27
2028145 03/30111 07674 US BANKCORPORATE PAYMENT 002801 02122111 DISTRICT EXPENSES 4,099.16
002802 01/24111 DISTRICT EXPENSES 3,278.45 7,377.61
Page 22 of 24
------------------
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS 2027682 THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 3/2/2011 TO 3/30/2011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2028059 03/23/11 04345 US CONCRETE PRECAST GROUP 01466571N 03/03/11 2"MTR BOX 23827 238.27
2028146 03/30/11 04345 US CONCRETE PRECAST GROUP 01467041N 03/07/11 METER BOX LIDS 4,509.86
01467051N 03/07/11 2"MTR BOX LIDS 788.44 5,298.30
2027750 03/02/11 11606 USABLUE BOOK 328250 02/08/11 CHANNELEDUCTOR 77.28 77.28
2028147 03/30/11 11606 USA BLUE BOOK 349814 03/10/11 CHARTS 147.84 147.84
2027940 03/16/11 01878 VACLAVEK,JACOB 002785 03/11/11 CERTIFICATE RENEWAL 60.00 60.00
2028060 03/23/11 08028 VALLEY CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMEN-SD1 00112 02/28/11 INSPECTION SERVICES 7,540.00 7,540.00
2027751 03/02/11 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS Ben2412291 03/03/11 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 7,348.10 7,348.10
2027752 03/02/11 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFERAGENTS 002757 03/01/11 401A PLAN 28,190.00 28,190.00
2027753 03/02/11 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFERAGENTS Ben2412281 03/03/11 401A PLAN 7,649.16 7,649.16
2027941 03/16/11 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFERAGENTS Ben2412605 03/17/11 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 7,614.73 7,614.73
2027942 03/16/11 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFERAGENTS Ben2412595 03/17/11 401APLAN 6,810.26 6,810.26
2028148 03/30/11 01095 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFERAGENTS Ben2412942 03/31/11 DEFERRED COMP PLAN 7,248.73 7,248.73
2028149 03/30/11 06414 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFERAGENTS Ben2412932 03/31/11 401APLAN 4,924.10 4,924.10
2027943 03/16/11 03329 VERIZON WIRELESS 0952859622 02/21/11 WIRELESS SERVICES 8,581.23 8,581.23
2028150 03/30/11 08380 VILLA FORD INC 002812 03/04/11 NEW VEHICLE 23,172.97 23,172.97
2028151 03/30/11 02700 WATER CONSERVATION GARDEN 11 03/10/11 GARDEN TOURS 2,480.00 2,480.00
2027944 03/16/11 03621 WATEREUSE ASSOCIATION 002777 03/09/11 REGISTRATION FEE 450.00 450.00
2027754 03/02/11 00517 WESCO DISTRIBUTION INC 420851 02/07/11 SHOP STOCK 1,823.76 1,823.76
2027857 03/09/11 00517 WESCO DISTRIBUTION INC 422690 02/11/11 SHOP STOCK 206.08 206.08
2027945 03/16/11 00517 WESCO DISTRIBUTION INC 424854 02/18/11 SHOP STOCK 151.92 151.92
2028061 03/23/11 00517 WESCO DISTRIBUTION INC 427323 02/25/11 SHOP STOCK 147.90 147.90
2028062 03/23/11 03131 WESTERN HOSE &GASKET 230032 02/28/11 REPAIR PART 77.21 77.21
2027858 03/09/11 00125 WESTERN PUMP INC 00980221N 02/15/11 APCD TESTING 400.00 400.00
2027859 03/09/11 03692 WESTIN ENGINEERING INC 227 01/25/11 PROJECT CONSULTING 15,805.71
272 02/09/11 PROJECT CONSULTING 8,806.22 24,611.93
Page 23 of24
-------------------------
OTAYWATER DISTRICT
CHECK REGISTER
FOR CHECKS2027682THROUGH 2028151
RUN DATES 3/2/2011 TO 3/30/2011
Check #Date Vendor Vendor name Invoice Inv Date Description Amount Paid Check Total
2027860 03/09/11 09149 WILLIS RISK AND INSURANCE
GRAND TOTAL
0233155 02/01/11
Page 24 of 24
BENEFITS CONSULTING 9,012.50
2,737,370.81
9,012.50
2,737,370.81